Cinema Canada (Aug 1974)

National Film Board

35th Anniversary Issue

We have a system for winning awards.

When buying motion picture equipment you
should — think systems. The immediate purchase
might only be a single piece but you should
plan and work towards the system you wish to
have eventually.

lf you agree with this concept, then you should
be dealing with Braun Electric. There's no compromise
of quality because each item is a world-famous
brand, like Arriflex, Nagra, laniro and Multi-Track.
The Arri/Nagra combination has without question
produced more award-winning motion pictures and
commercials than any other sight/sound pair.

Braun has developed the systems approach so
that you may enjoy all the benefits of one-source
buying, installation, service, plus finest quality products
that may be purchased or leased on our PLC plan.
Contact Braun’s Motion Picture Division and get the
systems story from the systems people.

Braun Electric Canada Ltd.,

3269 American Dr., Mississauga, Ontario
Telephone (416) 678-9200

L4V 1B9

CINEVISION

TORONTO MONTREAL VANCOUVER

35mm Cameras
Panavision Silent Reflex
180 and 200 Shutter
Panavision Arriflex
Panavision 35mm Blimp

for handheld operation = EXCLUSIVE CANADIAN DISTRIBUTOR

Mitchell SPR FOR PANAVISION LENSES
Arriflex 2B, 2C

Blimps 400’, 1000’

16mm Cameras
Arriflex BL, 16S
Eclair NPR, ACL

Video
Akai

Camera Dollies
Moviola

Elemack

Gimble Tripod

Heads

Sachtler and Wolf
O’Connor

National Cine

Worral

Power Grips

Samcine Limpet Mount

Lighting
Complete Lines of
Mole Richardson
Westinghouse
Roscolene
Sylvania

Generators
AC & DC Silent
Up to 1500 Amps

mee

Sound 4
Nagra,

Sennheiser \ me
Electrovoice ‘
Sony

Cinevision Mobiles
Specially constructed

to carry camera, lighting,
sound and grip all in

one vehicle. Glen Ferrier, General Manager, Mel Hoppenheim, President, Gerry Sohy, Manager,
2264 Lakeshore Blvd West, 2000 Northcliffe Ave., 2280 Folkstone Way,
Toronto 14, Ontario Montreal Quebec West Vancouver, B.C.
(416) 252-5457 (514) 487-5010 (604) 926-7784

Telex 06967839 Telex 0525460 Telex 04352690

On the U.S.’ Independence Day, 1974 —

Secretary of State Hugh Faulkner ap-

peared at a campaign meeting with

other candidates in his Peterborough
riding.
It seems that the long awaited Phase

II of the federal film policy could come

up with only three suggestions —

ONE — Increasing the capital cost allow-
ance for investment in feature film
production from 60 per cent to 115
per cent

TWO — Opening discussions with the
Provinces concerning quotas

THREE — Changing the CFDC mandate
to allow them funds for promotion
and distribution.

When Kirwan Cox asked Mr. Faulk-
ner what assurances the film community
had that these promises would be kept,

in view of the fact that, “I really believe .

that Mr. Faulkner’s record is so dismal
in this area’. Faulkner replied, ““We
your assessment of the record is yo
personal view. You're entitled to it
After listing the achievements of f
office, Faulkner continued, “Wh
brought out tonight reflects not I
months’ gestation as you suggest, b
the discussions we had following t
report of the Film Advisory Committee
— which I assume you’ve got — which
reported to me about-a month and
half ago. As I indicated to everyone
the film industry, Peter Pearson and
range of others, before I we
anything I would talk to them
their reaction to som
gestions.

The most pressing
tioned to me from peo}
One — the private sector

6 Cinema Canada

Negotiate with the provinces, who have
the ultimate jurisdiction over the thea-
tres, a more permanent quota system.” I
still think it’s going to help. And I
would suggest to you that that’s a mea-
sure of where we’ve gone in the brief
time that we’ve had since the Film
Advisory Committee Report.

The achievements Mr. Faulkner
pointed to were basically the voluntary
quota, the Festivals Office, and
broadening the CFDC’s mandate, “...
particularly in the areas I’ve mentioned
tonight and in possible other areas.
We’ve looked at the possibility of them
getting into television specials or, parti-
cularly television specials.”

When asked why the president of one
of the foreign-owned theatre chains sits
th Film Advisory Committee and
ings are held in secret,

t that Destounis
was, in fact, the

o me the reason. I don’t
yy decided to meet in
was the decision they
think it’s probably a more
_of working. In fact, what
there are a lot of people
ry clear idea of what’s in

dustry involved in the manufacture of
cinema. Not any cinema, mind you, but
this very elusive dream above the 49th
parallel, our own Canajan movie
making.

The following lists were compiled
with the assistance of half a dozen
hopeless idealists from Montreal,
Ottawa and Toronto, who keep tabs on
what productions are at what stage and
who’s doing them. It is a fruitless task,
since many producers would prefer to
forget about projects started and never
finished, others designed for pure profit
and some grandiose promises never ful-
filled. Even though avid perfectionists,
such as D. John Turner collaborated on
the major task of compiling data, errata
do slip in now and then. Others we
should thank include Pierre Latour and
his successors at New Canadian Film,
Philip McPhedran who was co-founder
of this very publication in its second
incarnation, and Harris Kirshenbaum,
whose knowledge of film is wide-ranging

and invaluable.
Omissions include features shot prior

to 1974 that haven’t yet been released,
and there are scores of them. That list
could then be broken down into films
that will definitely see a movie screen
this year and others condemned to
dusty shelves for the rest of their cellu-
loid life. Until one day some young
visionary breaks through the rusty crust
and decides to release the now blotched,
scratched, warped and tainted footage
either as experimental art or an archival
classic.

Last year 49 feature length motion
pictures produced in this country
played in our theatres; so far this year
29 have reached our foreign-owned sil-
ver screens. And even though Peter
Pearson is fond of saying that in 1974
only one major English Canadian fea-
ture has been shot, a closer scrutiny

-turns up titles like Why Rock the Boat
and the current mucho mysterioso

Xaviera Hollander epic, Gabrielle. Both
of these are majors by anyone’s defini-

tion, and more are being produced in

Québec. These major budget theatrical
features are given a single star (*),
hether or not the CFDC is involved,

1974 Releases

January

*Pour le Meilleur ou
pour le pire Claude Jutra
*Pousse Mais Pousse EgalDenis Héroux

Carle-Lamy
Claude Heroux

Canada-Franco Co-prod.

Summer of the Black Sisti

*Je t'aime Pierre Duceppe Productions **R ecommendation for
Mutuelles ercy : Murray Markowitz Paradise Films
February René Simard a Tokyo Laurent Larouche Cinécapital & Intervideo
**Bulldozer Pierre Harel ACPAV Revelation J. Kramer J. Kramer _
* Alien Thunder Claude Fournier Onyx Films Le Super Franco-fete Richard Lavoie Officedu Film duQuebec
*It était une fois **The Supreme Kid Peter Bryant David Tompkins
dans lest André Brassard Carle-Lamy Vie d’ange rapt de star Pierre Harel Bernard Lalonde
March *Why Rock the Boat? John Howe NFB
**The Visitor John Wright Highwood Productions Y a pas de mal a se faire roe
g Santee Blues Pascal Gelinas ACPAV du bien Claude Mulot Cinevideo
Christina Peter Kasny Trevor Wallace :
Par le fo des autres Future Projects
(formerly: Assassins i eae :
étonnés.) Marc Simenon Cinévideo Inc & Liabsence Brigitte Sauriol ACPAV |
Kangourou Prod. A Child in Prison Camp Kaneto Shindo/ Crawley/Espial
*Bingo Jean-Claude Lord Productions San Robin Campbell (Japan-Canada co-prod.)
Mutuelles we in Clover J. Edwards one iuey, ae
The Holy Assassin Byron Black Infinity Studios mOIvO 5 : Teen berg/ Mowat
An bout Roger Laliberté Roger Laliberté ae _ hs aed ' cr Adams
**T? ie i fe... R F i ACPA
ae ccs meddle g te *The Food of the Gods — Greenberg/Howard
ie Plumard en folie hoa Mi res = meeneet RE CRC (2)
: ; ohn and the Missus rodon Pinsen ?
(formerly Le Lit) Jacques Lem pone a os Me dete Hughes Tremblay Bernard Lalonde/Prisma
C’est votre plus beau Alain Dostie & *The GacCasile Don ptt Greenberg/Howard
temps! Serge Beauchemin NFB La Mort du pére Jean-Claude Labrecque Cinak Productions
**Bar Salon André Forcier Jean Dansereau Mustang Mascel Lecchvc q Peaductions
Images de Chine Marcel Carriere NFB Mutuelles
*The Apprenticeship of International Cinemedia ia Nef des fous Piste Mahe NF
Duddy Kravitz Ted Kotcheff Centre **The Parasite Complex David Cronenberg Reitman/DAL
**Wolfpen Principle Jack Darcus Image Flow Centre Ltd Sally Fieldgood & Co. Boon Collins W. Aellen
Montreal on Frank Vitale President Film Salut Philibert "V. Lallouz V. Lallouz
La Lutte profitera a * : : :
sale = CAV. Mostubincrs: we es Bill Davidson Burg Productions Ltd.
Les Productions Prisma St. Onge (formerly
May : Nothing) Gilles Carle Carle-Lamy
Les Deux cétés de la nee *Tout feu, tout femmes
Médaille G. L. Cété NFB or O Un Petit amour
*A Quiet Day In Belfast Milad Bessada Twinbay Media Int.Ltd de Pompier Gilles Richer Carle-Lamy
Dreamland A History Se **Ti-cul Tougas ou le
of Early Canadian = Don Brittain/ bout de la vie Jean-Guy Noél ACPAV
Movies 1895-1939 | Kirwan Cox CFI/NFB Viellir avec Georges Dufaux NFB
Diary of a Sinner Ed Hunt lain Ewing *Seven Against the West — Panorama
A votre Sante Georges Dufaux NFB : Spaces Howard Alk Howard Alk
*Sweet Movie Dusan Makavejev Carle-Lamy/Mojack/ Sparks Bob Elliott Prod.

Bob Elliott Prod.

June Tong W. Tracy Moi Fa Productions
Mistachipu Arthur Lamothe Arthur Lamothe Truckdriver ~ Filmwest
(one of 8 parts of Carcajou et le péril blanc) *Two Solitudes -- Seagull Productions
*The Inbreaker George McCowan Bob Elliott Film Ultimatum _ CBC Drama
Production :
i one Jacques Gagné Les Ateliers Tentative
rou : multidisciplinaires Information on the following titles is hard to come by, but they are
est pour partir le ossible productions for the coming year
monde Charles Binamé P P sees
: Agency = CBC Drama
Shot in 74 and not yet released *Black Donnellys se Saroy Productions
*Chansons pour Juli Jacques Vallée Carle-Lamy
Abitibi/Baie James Pierre Perreault NFB *Cocksure Ted Kotcheff _
*Les Aventures d’une *Coup d’Etat Martin Burke CBC/Quadrant
Jeune veuve Roger Fournier Productions David R. Willsey —
Mutuelles *The Devil’s Rain - Greenberg/Howard
The Ballad of Eskimo Cdn-Australian co-prod. The Double Hook — Filmwest
Nell Richard Franklin Cinepix *A Dream that Never (Canada/Poland
Les Beaux Dimanches Richard Martin Mojack Came J. Passendorfer co-production)
*Black Christmas Bob Clarke August Films L’Etat Solide Luc-Michel Hannaux Don Buschbaum
Feast of the Cannibal *Execution Don Shebib Clearwater
Ghouls (or The Corpse— Larry Zazalenchuk *The Great Canadian
Eaters) Novel _ Host Productions
Franz J. Sweeney & P. *The Incredible Atuk | Norman Jewison —_
Aspland House of Canterbury John Ware — Host Productions
**The Fury Plot Brian Damude Ben Caza Killing Ground - Muddy York Prod.’s
*Gabriele Al Waxman August Films *K osygin is Coming - Britain/Canada co-prod.
*Gina Denys Arcand Carle-Lamy The Lady of the
* Jacques Brel is Alive Meadow Graham Parker _
and Well and Living Cinévideo A Lark in Clear Air - CBC Drama
In Paris Denis Héroux Canada-Franco co-prod. | *Magna One ~ Greenberg/Howard
**Johnny Canuck and the *Martin’s Day - J. Bassett
Elgin Marbles Patrick Loubert Don Haig, Film Arts *Micro Blues George Kaczender G. Kaczender Prod.
*Journey into Fear Daniel Mann Trevor Wallace *The Moon and
**Me John Palmer Muddy York Prod. Sixpence ~ J. Bassett
Parti Pour la Gloire Clément Pérron NFB **The Mourners Leonard Yakir -
**]_a Piastre Alain Chartrand ACPAV Phenorite Julius Kohanyi —
La Pomme, la queue, et Rosedale Lady Don Owen —
et les pépins Claude Fournier Rose Films *Rrromppp. ... ~ Greenberg/Howard

Cinema Canada 7

Canada at Cannes 1974:
A Second Look —Len Klady

Cannes 1974 marked this country’s
emergence aS a presence in world
cinema. Canada ffinally racked up
significant enough movie sales to
move out of the minor leagues. The
sixteen or so films at Cannes, how-
ever, did not represent a renaissance
for the industry. Last year not only
were there more films, but these
films were of higher quality and en-
compassed a wider ranger of themes.
Nonetheless, sales were significantly
higher this year.

Apart from perhaps shrewder sell-
ing, commerciality may have also
been a factor. The buyers obviously
thought so. Yet, most people I met
were unimpressed by our product.
One person stated he had only seen
one Canadian film. On closer inspec-
tion it turned out that he had seen
five or six. Another person was
quite confused by our brochures on
each film. He found them so homo-
geneous that he could not decipher
any difference between films as radi-
cally different as “Bingo,” ‘“Explod-
ing Dreams’ and “Cry of the Wild.”

To be more specific 3 1/4 films
represented Canada in various com-
petitions. The 1/4 film was “Sweet
Movie” by Dusan Makavejev in the
Director’s Fortnight. This film had
some Canadian financing, several
Canadian actors and was largely shot
in Montreal. The film is very diffi-
cult on a number of levels. The plot
involves several unrelated stories. One
story involves the decline of Miss
World 1984 from a throne of gold
to a throne of chocolate. Another
story involves the female captain of
a barge on the Seine who seduces
and murders young boys. In _ the
midst of this are several scenes in-
volving urinating, vomiting and defa-
cating which managed to raise the
audiences’ eyebrows several inches.
At the press conference the question
was posed, “Don’t you think you’ve
gone too far?” The reply, “I am not
yet liberated.”” The CFDC were ask-
ing the question, should we pull our
credit?

Also in the Fortnight was Jean-

Pierre Lefevbre’s, ‘“‘Les Derniére
Fiangailles.” This film was both
modest and impressive. A_ touching

look at the last days of an elderly
couple which was unfortunately
shown late in the evenings. For
those with an attention span greater
than three minutes there were few
disappointments.

In official competition we had a
short entitled “Hunger” a tale of the
excesses of affluence. The use of a
computer animation process was ini-
tially quite startling and the film

8 Cinema Canada

Scenes from “‘Hunger”’

won the Special Jury Award for
short films. Our feature entry, “Il
Etait une Fois dans l’Est” did not
fair as well. The film is successful
largely for its guts and energy. How-
ever, it is both stylistically and
structurally uneven.

Out of competition the most in-
teresting films I saw were a marvel-
lous documentary entitled, “Images
de Chine,” a rather good film a la
Peckinpah, “Sunday in the Country,”
and the highly political “Bingo.” Not
surprisingly, these films scored most
of the sales.

The NFB reported most of their
sales going to television around the
world. They sold some of their fea-
tures and shorts and scored best on

their two feature documentaries.
Apart from “Images de Chine,” their
best sales were for “Cry of the

Wild,” sold to areas in Asia, as well
as, Japan and South Africa.

Cinepix reported sales of
$100,000. This figure excluded sales
on a non-Canadian erotic film, “Wet
Dreams.’ What they did sell was last
years product including ‘“Kamour-
aska” and “Réjeanne Padovani.” Also
quite successful was an independent
film, ‘“‘Valse 4 3 Temps.” It was re-
ported sold to England, Australia
and some countries in Africa. Unfor-
tunately, there were no similar sales
for other low-budget films. This was
largely due to the lack of funds for
35mm blow-up. Quite strange, as this
program is the CFDC’s most ambi-
tious and creative venture.

$100,000 of sales were racked up
for “Bingo.” This figure excludes
France which will give the film quite
a large opening. The figure represents
among other’ countries, England,
Holland and Uruguay. One person
who was greatly moved by the film
was screenwriter Jorge (‘‘Z”, ‘State
of Siege”) Semprun. Semprun now
wants to write a screenplay for pro-
ducer/director Jean-Claude Lord.

The heaviest sales were reported
by American lawyer Arnold
Kopelson. Kopelson represented such
Canadian films as “Duddy Kravitz,”
“Sunday in the Country,” and
“Child Under a Leaf.” Interest of a
million dollars and sales of over
$600,000 were scored from his

entries. He briefly brought up his
disappointment at the Cannes com-
mittee’s rejection of “Duddy
Kravitz” from official competition.
He felt he could have done an addi-
tional $500,000 of business had it
been present.

No one seems to know why
exactly the film “Duddy Kravitz”
was passed over in favour of “Il
Etait une Fois dans lst.” Certainly
“L’Est” has the stamp of a film
which could only have been made in
Canada. “Duddy Kravitz’ with its
highly noticable American cast looks
as Canadian as a MacDonald ham-
burger or a bottle of Canada Dry.
This does not prevent it from being
a fine film though. What did come
to light was the inability of Secre-
tary of State to impose their choice
on the committee. In this case, they
were afraid to oppose the Cannes
committee. I also learned that the
Secretary of State’s film officers
actively opposed the _ choice of
“Slipstream” at Filmex in Los
Angeles. Gary Essert of Filmex had
requested that film and was taken
aback when Secretary of State was
uncooperative as they felt the film
was unrepresentative of Canada.

The future of the industry? Ac-
cording to Arnold Kopelson we have
to do more co-productions. Co-
productions mean the opportunity of
higher budgets, greater access to
international markets and the possi-
bility of using international _ stars.
The producers of “Bingo” agreed.
They felt their film would have sold
much better with the presence of
French and American stars. As well,
Kopelson urged the making of more
action pictures. “It’s the safest way
to bring back your investment,” he
insisted.

These are merely monetary solu-
tions. No one seemed particularly in-
terested in solving the question of
how we develop talent. Today, only
a handful of productions are set to
roll. The co-productions hinted at a
few months ago are surprisingly hid-
den and there are reports of some
directors planning exploitation films
using assumed names. Here in Can-
ada the gaiety of Cannes is more
than an ocean aparte

Ideal for those small spaces...this
table is only 43” wide. Yet it's a com-
plete 16 mm editing machine with
6-plates consisting of 2 sound and 1
picture track. This machine also offers
edge or centre track heads. 12-watt
amplifier and speaker. Counter in
footage or minute/seconds. Or choose
the model with table top extensions

821 Kipling Avenue, Toronto, Ontario
M8Z 5G8 Phone: 416-233-1101

for added convenience. It has motor

driven rewinder for winding inter-
mediate cuts (up to 500’ approx.) and
an additional sound head for 16 mm
mag. film for manual operation. So
when you have to cut 16 mm and you
don’t have a lot of space... cut it short.
Choose a Steenbeck ST1900...the
complete editing machine.

Kingsway Film Equipment Ltd.

2151 West 4th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C.
V6K 1N7 Phone: 604-736-8431

Warehouses in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Service across the country.

Photo: John Brett

ATLANTIC
PROVINCES

Chuck Lapp (left) seems to be excited about something that Art McKay (centre) is skeptical

about while an unidentified spectator (right) watches the show at a Bluegrass Music Festival

These ocean-washed provinces seem to
be vibrating with the hum of Arriflexes
and Eclairs these days as an unpreceden-
ted number of films are being shot in
this area.

At the Atlantic Filmmakers’ Co-Op
John Brett has almost completed the
shooting of Voices from the Landscape,
a documentary of the decline of the
family homestead way of life on the
South Shore of Nova Scotia. John lives
near Yarmouth, N.S. and joined the
Co-Op this Spring after taking film pro-
duction at Sheridan College near
Toronto for two years. Ken Pittman, a
Halifax filmmaker originally from
NFLD is about to edit his film called
The Devil’s Purse, a cinematic study of
the work of Nfld sculptor, Don Wright.
Don Wary, former percussionist with
the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, is
doing the soundtrack for the film.
Lionel Simmons, another Halifax film-
maker is editing a short piece of esoteric
erotica called See-Saw and is doing pre-
production on a Co-Op film scheduled
for shooting in September with a work-
ing title of Masterpiece. The film will
involve the building of a number of sets
because of its futuristic theme and
Lionel will be working with designer
Fred Allen, formerly Canada Council
Artist-in-Residence at Dalhousie Uni-
versity and now working with CBC
on the House of Pride series. Equil-
ibrium, another of Lionel’s films is
currently being shown as part of a play
called Dangling Desperation or All
Strings Attached at Pier One Theatre,
written and directed by Keith MacNair.

At recent meetings of the Script
Selection Committee of the Atlantic

10 Cinema Canada

Filmmakers Co-Operative, several pro-
ductions were given the go-ahead with
stock, equipment, and _ expenses.
Ramona Macdonald is now in produc-
tion on a film called The Castaway, a
half-hour drama about superstition in a
small fishing village. Gary Castle, Jim
Clarke, Ashley Lohnes, Art McKay,
John Brett, and Chuck Lapp teamed up
to do a film on a recent Bluegrass Music
Festival held on a farm 30 miles from
Halifax.

In other Co-Op productions, Grant
Young has recently completed the
shooting of a film called Fable, an
allegorical short involving children play-
ing on a beach, with Lionel Simmons
helping out with the cinematography.
Margaret Mead is at the sound editing
stage with a short film she is producing
under the auspices of the Co-Op and Art
McKay is also putting the finishing
splices into a 16mm colour short. In
Super 8, Mike Benoit is working on a
film to go with an extensive soundtrack
which has been in the making for about
a year, Normand LeBlanc and Monique
Leger from Moncton, N.B. are also
working in Super 8 on a film about
Acadian life in their home city. A group
of students from the Halifax South
Open School are funded under OFY but
are working through the Co-Op to do a
Super 8 documentary on their school.
The group is using the Hampton-
Leacock Super 8 sync sound system
courtesy of the National Film Board’s
Challenge for Change program, and is
editing the film at the Co-Op. Members
of the group are: Bernie Johnson, Mary
Ruth Crosby, Charles Grantmyre, Dave
Barteaux, and Giesela Andrews.

Chuck Lapp

Cod on a Stick

The National Film Board series of pro-
ductions for the East television special
next March has been gaining momentum
and has carried the ‘“‘board” to the
outermost regions of Newfoundland.
Two satirical sketches by a Nfld theatri-
cal company called Cod on a Stick are
scheduled for shooting in mid-August
along with a five-minute skit called
Media Outport. Other productions in
Nfld include an animation film about
famous and notorious figures in New-
foundland history, and The Brothers
Bryne, the story of two well-known
Nfld brothers who came from a tiny
outport called Paradise.

In other Atlantic areas, NFB is work-
ing on a 10-minute historical treatise on
Halifax called Halifax Song. The music
track for the film was written by Jim
Bennett of Singalong Jubilee fame.
Acadian Expression, a film shot in New
Brunswick is now ready for editing and
Boohoo, a film about a man who
manages a cemetery in Saint John, N.B.
is in the final shooting stages. Black
Community, a film to be shot under the
NFB Multiculturalism program by the
Montreal Production unit is also
scheduled but will not be part of the
East series.

Outtakes

The Atlantic Filmmakers Co-Op has
moved to 1671 Argyle St., Halifax,
N.S., and now shares lairs with Teled, a
media access video group.

Grant Crabtree, a filmmaker former-
ly with Crawley Films, NFB, and most
recently, the National Research Council,
has moved to the Margaree Valley, Cape
Breton recently from Ottawa, and has
been working with the Atlantic Film-
makers Co-Op on several productions as
a technical advisore

John Brett (left) takes a reading at the
Bluegrass Festival while Art McKay (right)
takes in the music.

ddeq yony) :010Ud

Eumig, pioneers in the development of
8mm /Super 8 sound projectors have set a new
standard in high fidelity sound reproduction...
constant quality performance. Eumig’s new sound
projectors, the 800 Series, are the fulfillment of more
than fifty years of experience in projection design.

The result is a particularly favourable performance /
price relationship with a range of models to match
your particular Super 8 or Dual 8 projection needs.
Eumig design innovations will give you pictures that
are infinitely sharper and brighter, plus rich full-

fidelity living sound.

The
Sound %
Side of \

x wet

& a,

euml
MARKS Re HOI0

Dual 8 SOUND projector

EUMIG MARK S 810D — anall round, Dual 8
Sound Projector specially aimed at simple, reliable
use without limiting its versatility. It can play back
and record sound on all 8mm or Super 8 magnetic
striped films; an obvious advantage as many 8mm
films can be resurrected with the addition of sound.

Features include: VARIO EUPRONET fl.3, 15-30mm
zoom lens /pre-heated 12V, 100W Dichroic reflector Tungsten
Halogen Lamp /manual Sound-on-Sound recording /fully
automatic threading with 600 ft. capacity /adjusts automatically
to the Standard Sound Separation 18 fps for Super 8 or 56 fps
for Standard 8 /monitoring through incorporated speaker with
adjustable volume /new convenient control lights, Red for
recording, Amber for Sound-on-Sound recording.

In U.S.A. Write:

EUMIG (U.S.A.) Inc.,

Lake Success Business Park,
225 Community Drive,
Great Neck, N.Y. 11020.

PAYS Biri

MARK S 810D LUX — all the features of the
810D but comes with the super sharp, highly
corrected, fl. 0, 18 to 28mm zoom lens.

MARK S 807 — for Super 8 films only — fl. 6,
17-30mm VARIO EUPRONET lens /12V 75W
Dichroic reflector Tungsten Halogen lamp,
preheated for longer life /manual Sound-on-Sound
recording /fully automatic threading with 600 ft.
Capacity.

Full details available by writing:

E W. CARSEN CoO. LTD.

31 SCARSDALE ROAD « DON MILLS * ONTARIO * CANADA M3B 2R2

VANCOUVER

Jack Ammon

NFB — West Coast
Production Unit

Peter Jones, Executive Producer for the
National Film Board heads a greatly
expanded West Coast production unit
occupying two floors of the old Van-
couver Block on Granville Street. This
includes an animation department em-
ploying an animation camera which ex-
tends into two stories. In charge of the
technical production is Jack Long,
Director-Cameraman for many NFB
productions. Hans Oomes is sound man,
Don Worobey is head of the animation
department.

Besides professional documentary
filming, Jones’ new production set-up is
geared to encourage young film stu-
dents. It offers facilities with personnel
recruited from the Vancouver School of
Art.

Hugh Foldes is a Vancouver animator
who has created a charming children’s
film cartoon, Bear’s Christmas, which
the NFB will promote. E. Schmitt has
created a spoof on TV about the media
training all its guns on the ruthless
commercialism.

Montreal is sharing a series of docu-
mentaries, eight in all, of which the B.C.
unit is producing five including Nicola
Valley, set in the ranching country;
Stewart, the story of a West Coast town
long asleep now to be opened up for
exploitation. (Barry Howells directs
with Tony Westman of Vancouver on
camera); Sheila Reljic is directing a
story on soccer, which she will also edit;
Driving for Balance is an account of
driving in Canada’s cities, to be filmed
in Vancouver.

Daryl Duke, who started his film
career with the National Film Board in
Ottawa in the 1950’s has directed a half
hour documentary on the type of men
that life in the wilderness of B.C. some-
times produces. The subjects are Chief
David Frank, 75, and his life long pal
Bert Clayton, a nimble 88. This gentle-
man has lived most of his life in the
mountains of B.C., never been sick a
day in his life, and still strides the peaks
carrying now a 50 lb. pack, instead of
an 85 lb. one.

The two men have been friends since
youth, and Duke first heard of them
when he was directing Tom Courtenay
in the TV feature I Heard an Owl Call
My Name, in Ahousett. Duke, whose
career has graphed upward considerably
and who now chooses assignments, told
Jones about the two men and what a
good script they’d offer. Jones said,
“Yes, they’d make it if Duke would

12 Cinema Canada

-

Cinematographer Tony Westman and Ist Assistant Rick Patton shooting ‘“‘The Supreme Kid”.

direct.”

Duke squeezed two weeks out of his
schedule to make the half hour docu-
mentary. The crew, composed largely of
young men, found the going tough
keeping up with agile Bert Clayton, but
Jones is confident the film, David and
Bert will be one of his production
office’s highlights.

Sally Fieldgood & Company

Werner Aellen, who produced The Wolf-
pen Principle directed and written by
Jack Darcus, is trying his hand at what
he hopes will be the ultimate Canadian
comedy feature, Sally Fieldgood and
Company. Boon Collins is the director,
the location the ranch area of British
Columbia around hot spot Cache Creek.
The lensing begins simultaneously with
Cinema Canada’s going to press.

Collins is best known for his Kettle

of Fish, made in New York. He also has
had four years’ experience in Rome
with American feature film companies
as an A.D. Co-writer with Collins on
Sally Fieldgood is Barry Pearson who
co-wrote Paperback Hero.

The film is set at the turn of the
century and is actually a Western moral-
ity story. The shooting schedule is 3 1/2
weeks for theatrical release. Hagan
Beggs, with some Hollywood exposure
and formerly in the drama department
of the Simon Fraser University, plays
the male lead. Liza Creighton of Toron-
to, with considerable exposure on the
CBC, plays Sally. Others locally cast
include Keith Pepper, Lloyd Barry,
Anne Cameron, Bryan Brown, Don
Granberry, and Ross Vessarian.

The film is partially financed by the
Canadian Film Development Corpor-
ation, to a budget tabbed at $115,000.

P.S. Production Services Ltd.

—— ~ 368-1161

CINEVISION PRESENTS THE
PANAFLEX

At a true Hollywood-style reception at

the Four Seasons Sheraton Hotel on

July 11, Robert Gottschalk, President

of Panavision Inc., presented the Pana-

flex camera to invited guests. The long-

awaited camera sat on a tripod under a

golden cloth cover. A hush fell upon the

audience as the machine was unveiled
and carefully presented by its proud
innovator.

There are only 68 Panavision R-200’s
in existence. Of these, 67 are in use, and
one was stolen somewhere in New York.
These machines have pretty well be-
come the standard of the feature in-
dustry, with only their size acting as a
drawback. The Panaflex has been in
development for five years with various
field testing applications making de-
mands for modifications and improve-
ments. The result is a machine which is
more sophisticated and expensive than a
Rolls Royce Corniche.

The prime advantage of the new cam-
era is its multi-function design and bril-
liant engineering which allow it to fulfill
all functions. It converts in minutes
from a silent studio camera with a
1000-foot magazine down to a silent
shoulder camera with a 250! magazine
that does not protrude over the opera-
tor’s head. The changeover must be seen
to be believed.

— Silent. 264] db with film, without a
blimp. Not even the lens is enclosed
and it’s as quiet as blimped cameras
— even with zoom lenses.

— Behind the lens filter, in a slot just in
front of the film plane.

— Pin Register Movement designed and
built by Panavision with an easily
removable aperature plate for quick
inspection and cleaning. The entire
pulldown movement removes with
two screws to allow access.

— Lightweight. With a prime lens and
the 250 foot magazine mounted on
the back of the camera, the 25
pound machine balances easily on

TECHNICAL NEWS

the shoulder. A _ ball-joint in the
shoulder pad allows the operator
great freedom in finding a comfort-
able holding position.

— Versatile. The 1000, 500 and 250
foot magazines all mount either on
the top or the back of the camera
allowing complete freedom of choice
to fit it into tight spots on location.

— Crystal controlled motor with regu-
lated variability from 6 to 32 f.p.s.

— 200 Degree variable shutter gives
added exposure with reduced
strobing.

—Zoom eyepiece with 2 filters, de-
anamorphosizer, and 360 degree ro-
tation. The image remains erect all
through rotation of the eyepiece.
One of the lesser but very appreci-
able refinements is a bellows system
on the eyecup which, when pressed
with the head, pumps air through the
eyepiece removing fog that forms
during those tense shots.

Then, when you’ve digested all that,
consider the two digital readouts posi-
tioned over the lens which give exposed
footage readings and running speed in
f.p.s. (to the tenth of a frame) instantly.
The memory circuit in the footage read-
outs allows the footage to be checked
by pushing a small button when the
camera is not running.

Mr. Gottschalk also mentioned fea-
tures like the camera always stopping
with the viewfinder open, the switch on
the camera door which prevents acci-
dental starts while loading, the gears in
the magazine which prevent the film
from unwinding once it’s on the take up
spool, the out-of-sync warning light in-
side the viewfinder, and the automatic
thermostat for the internal heater. Add
to that the compatibility of all Pana-
vision lenses and the Panaflex becomes a
total system.

After the presentation the meeting
opened for questions. the first one in-
volved the light-emitting diode lapel
pins that the Panavision representatives
all wore. (They were specially made and

the red flashing lights were most effec-
tive at making Gottschalk, his two asso-
ciates and Mel Hoppenheim stand out in
the crowd.) Richard Leiterman asked
why the camera was introduced in New
York, London and Tokyo before they
came to Canada. The answer was that
those cities use Panavision equipment
more and the company wanted to intro-
duce them in places where they could
get them into the field and work out the
bugs. “And if it makes you feel any
better,” said Gottschalk, “Mexico hasn’t
seen it yet.”

Q:Is there any provision for left-eyed
operators?

A: Aright-sided viewfinder is in the works
and will be available shortly.

Q: What about follow focus in the
shoulder mode?

A: There are flexible shaft attachments
that will allow the assistant to oper-
ate focus from either three or nine
feet from the camera.

Q: What are the rental rates?

(There was a definite attempt to
change the subject at this point, but Ms.
Samuels is most persistent.)

A: The PSR rents for $600/week, and
the Panaflex will rent for $1200/
week or $400/day, including motor,
2 batteries, charger, accessories for
both modes, and 2-500 foot maga-
zines. But without lenses.

Q:Is technical backup and instruction
available?

A: The staff at Cinevision is fully ac-
quainted with the Panaflex and are
prepared to teach operation, loading,
use of accessories and _ trouble-
shooting. The electronics are all mod-
ular and mounted on plug in circuit
boards. Spare boards are included.

Q:Cinema Canada magazine recently
carried an article on a 3-perforation
system. (Trilent 35) Is the Panaflex
adaptable to that configuration?

A: It is completely possible to convert
the Panaflex to any system presently
available or any that may come up in
the future.

14 Cinema Canada

Photo: Frederik Manter

To close the presentation, Mr. Gotts-
chalk also announced that two new
lenses were soon to be available, a 20
and a 14mm T/1.9, that heaters were
being built into the magazines making
the Panaflex completely workable in
very cold weather; and that the heat
from transistors in the electronic con-
trol section dumps into the camera

body to supplement the internal heater. -

As a final bit of information, the
Panaflex is factory convertable to
16mm, easily making it the most expen-
sive and the most sophisticated 16mm
camera in captivity.

All that remains to be said of the
Panaflex is that it must be seen. Contact
Cinevision Ltd., 2264 Lakeshore Blvd.
West, Toronto. (416) 252-5457. And
don’t ask the purchase price!

P.M.P.E.A.

Recently in Los Angeles, the Pro-
fessional Motion Picture Equipment As-
sociation was formed to improve tech-
nical standards and business practices in
the professional motion picture equip-
ment industry. Association members in-
clude the leading manufacturers and
dealers, rental houses, importers and
distributors of professional motion pic-
ture equipment. Association president
Joe Tawil, President of Berkey Color-
tran states the prime purpose of the
organization “is to improve industry
standards by gathering and dissemin-
ating pertinent information to our mem-
bers. We believe this will be of great
benefit to the professional equipment
industry and to the filmmakers who use
our equipment.”

Canadian companies which have al-
ready joined the PMPEA, which is an
international operation that hopes to
expand into Europe as well, are Cine-
quip Camera and Equipment Rentals,
and R.D. Systems, both based in
Toronto. Some of their American asso-
ciates are the Angénieux Corp. of Amer-

ica, Arriflex, Birns & Sawyer, The Cam-
era Mart, Canon USA, Cinema Products,
Eclair, Nagra, O’Connor, Tiffen, and
Gordon Yoder Inc.

The committees which have been
established are dealing with areas of
technical standards, membership evalua-
tion, standards for business practices,
warranty evaluation, trade show policy
and practice, international membership,
and association publicity.

It is the hope of the association that
by its activities it will maintain the
integrity and enhance the prestige of the
association and its members, and in-
crease the usefulness of the professional
motion picture equipment industry to
the public at large.

W. CARSEN ACQUIRES
MOVIOLA DISTRIBUTION

The Magnasync/Moviola Corporation of
North Hollywood has announced the
appointment of W. Carsen Co. Ltd. as
the Canadian distributors for their full
range of products, as of May 1974. All
enquiries regarding this equipment
should be directed to the Professional
Division, at 31 Scarsdale Road, Don
Mills, Ontario, M3B 2R2. Phone (416)
444-1155.

Carsen has been a distributor of high
quality photographic and optical pro-
ducts for over 28 years and includes in
its representative lines: Eumig, Bolex,
Olympus, Hoya, and others all on an
exclusive Canadian basis. A complete
inventory of Magnasync/Moviola stock
and spares is now being established at
Carsen’s head office.

NEW EDITION OF
“CINEMA PERSPECTIVES”
NOW AVAILABLE

The Spring 1974 edition of “Cinema
Perspectives”, published as a service to
the motion picture and television indus-
tries by Cinema Products Corporation,
is now available.

The four-colour, 16-page booklet
contains articles on TV-news/docu-
mentary filmmaking, as well as stories
about the new XR35 lightweight studio
camera and its performance in the
course of filming feature films and TV
commercials.

To receive your free copy of
“Cinema Perspectives” send a written
request (on company letterhead) to
Cinema Products Corp., 2037 Granville
Ave., Los Angeles, California 90025.

Harris Kirshenbaum

CP-16R Number 100
Delivered to
Alex L. Clark Ltd.

The lightweight, crystal controlled, self
contained CP-16R camera has been
available only a short time, and already
one hundred have been manufactured
and delivered. The photo shows Abbott
Sydney, National Sales Manager of
Cinema Products handing the CP-16R to
Roy Ramsdale, President of Alex L.
Clark Ltd., the Canadian distributor of
Cinema Products equipment, while P.C.
Wu and Gerry Quinney look on.

S.M.P.T.E. Conference to
be held in Toronto

November 10-15 will see the Soci-
ety of Motion Picture and Tele-
vision Engineers Conference and
Equipment Show being held at the
Four Seasons Sheraton Hotel in
Toronto. Alex MacGregor of
O.E.C.A. has been appointed Local
Arrangements Chairman with overall
responsibility for Conference arrange-
ments.

The conference will feature a week
of sessions on the technical aspects of
motion pictures and television. Session
topics include Television Systems,
Photo Instrumentation, Films for Tele-
vision, Motion Picture Systems, Small
Format, Theatre Design and Projection,
Satellites in Broadcasting, Cable Tele-
vision, Television and Film in Educa-
tion, Laboratory Practices, and Sound
Recording and Reproduction. A 78-
booth exhibition of professional motion
picture and television equipment will
run concurrently with the technical
sessions.

Harold Eady, of Bonded Services
International, Toronto, is publicity
chairmane

Cinema Canada 15

CLASSIFIED

16BL, wireless, complete; 16S with
12-120 zoom, O’Connor tripod and
lights; all in excellent condition and
available for rental preferably over ex-
tended period. Kurt Palka, 121 Walker
Ave., Toronto M4V1G5. (416)
967-6751.

FOR SALE: 35mm Editing Equipment.
One 35mm Steenbeck, 6-plate, regular
format and Cinemascope. Also 35mm
synchronizer, splicers, etc. Call Karl
Gilbert Editorial (416) 368-4883.

FOR SALE: Magnasync/Moviola port-
able 16mm Recorder/Dubber. Includes
all electronics in 2 carrying cases. Nearly
new. (416) 864-1113.

FOR SALE: 16mm colour raw stock.
Reduced prices on 100 and 400 foot
rolls. Kodak 7241, 7242, 7252. Approx-
imately 29,000 feet. Call Penny Hynam
(416) 536-6061.

FOR SALE: ACL. With 9.5 — 57 f/1.6
lens, crystal motor, battery and charger,
200 foot magazine. Used once. Also
Tandberg 111P. (416) 278-4417

FOR SALE: Never used, 40% off list,
Colortran Minis 6 and 9’s. Complete.
One of each. Calgary (403) 264-6557.
After hours (403) 271-5874.

ATTENTION PRODUCERS: Isn’t it
just about time we produced a feature
production with all the ingredients of a
potential first for Canada? I have such
a professional low budget property
(final draft) bubbling with human inter-
est, character, and comedy, with a
golden plot. Available for production.
For details write: Screenplay, Box
2212, Calgary, Alberta T2P 0M7.

FOR SALE: Siemens 16mm model
2000 Interlock Projector Mag and
optical, with attachments, very good
condition. 16mm Moviscop viewer.
16mm 4-gang Moviola syncronizer with
2 heads and squawk box. 16mm Leo
Catozzo Splicer. Rewinds with 8’’ arms.
Steel film bin. Wood film bin. Wooden
editing table with arborite top. 1200
foot reels, cans, and cores. Rack mount-
ed RCA professional sound amplifier for
theatre. RCA professional studio micro-
phone No.10001 original cost $800.00.
2 American D44 Microphones for fish-
pole. Phone Toronto (416) 249-3596,
Evenings.

16 Cinema Canada

SE UUAY

STILLS, TITLES, HI-CONS,
CEL ANIMATION, PHOTOS,
TRANSPARENCIES, etc.

WILL
SHOOT

PRODUCTIONS
LIMITED

ae
-> >

AN

&

18 TEMPERANCE STREET, TORONTO, ONT., M5H 1Y4 -

360°1456

TH3Aa'S WOH TO Te
FILL BOARD
ThA) W3e3Ts Ts 3/3

And what would this gin-drinking terror who started the place
thirty-five years earlier do if he were running the monolith
now? Firstly, he’d move the place back into the center of the
city or at least near a respectable selection of taverns. The
truth is, he never approved of the move to Montreal in the first
place, preferring its original sawmill in the nation’s capital. For
it is in Ottawa that we have a focus of a national concensus
and it is there that the money is printed. When he visited the
Film Board briefly on its 25th anniversary, he did not look
with total favour on his oversized war baby. Reports have it
that he went charging up and down its long halls shouting, “I’d
fire them all!” Nervous secretaries peeked out of their offices
to see what all the fuss was about.

That day, the entire staff was given a holiday. I was working
as a sound technician there in the summer of 1964 and was
told the Film Board was 25 years old. There was drinking in
the normally staid, mahogany-trimmed building’s hallways and
decorations were being set up on the sound stage. Here, invited
guests were later to give and hear speeches. One of these
speakers was to be John Grierson, a name I had never heard
before. I was later told that he had ‘started’ the Film Board
and had flown in from England to be present and I was
suitably impressed.

Grierson’s speech was saved for the last and is the one that
has stayed most vividly in my mind. The other speeches came
from present Board officialdom as well as government officials
and they consisted of the usual stuff spewed out on such
occasions. Grierson’s speech stuck out from these pleasantries
like a red hot iron. His speech is, characteristically enough, not
available even in the Film Board’s own library so I have to
quote from memory.

“J have come here to remind you that you are all employees

of the government of Canada — you are all civil servants using
the tax money of, and working for the benefit of the people of
Canada. This is not a playground... .”

There was a hush that came over the audience of the kind
that would occur if somebody had committed some gross faux
pas at a dinner party.

“It has come to my attention recently that the Film Board
more and more is becoming infiltrated with ‘arty-tarty’ types
who intend to use the facilities which it offers for their own
private purposes. There will come a time, and mark my words,
it will come; when the limit of public tolerance will be
transgressed and the activities of the Board will be severely
curtailed.

“The National Film Board of Canada is a public utility
almost in the same sense as is the Electric Company or the Gas
Board. If it fails to do its service as a public function, it will no
longer have any reason for existing and will be destroyed. . . =

We forget, but Grierson’s genius was not only in discovering
talent, but in setting up a meaningful environment in which
this talent could grow. And when experts from Nigeria or
Harvard University come to examine this organization, they
don’t come to visit its laboratories or its flashy sound mixing
studios, they are looking at a 35-year miracle, a structure that
allows creative filmmaking within the arbitrary winds of
government in the boring sea of civil service. And Grierson
somehow pulled it off. We only have to look at American
government films (U.S.I.A.), or indeed the official films from
almost any government in the world to see what things could
have been like. Maybe he wouldn’t have totally approved
particularly of the excesses, but there is no doubt it was this
fire-eating Scot that made it all possible.

Cinema Canada 17

Photo: Nick Deichmann

Photo: Baltazar

Photo: Baltazar

William Weintraub

18 Cinema Canada

WILLIAM WEINTRAUB

Stephen Chesley

PRODUCER,
“WIAY ROCK THE BOAT?”

Chief Recording Engineer /Mixer

Writer-producer Bill Weintraub described the scene to be shot
on the sound stage in front. Big band music drifted out of
corners, and the cast took their positions. ““A young reporter
applies for his first regular job. The stern, patriarchal editor
demolishes one applicant after another. Finally our boy is
accepted.”

It may sound like something out of Hollywood in its prime,
but it’s really happening this past spring, and at the National
Film Board! The production is Why Rock the Boat?, and it is
one of the features in English Production made during the past
year. On a budget of around four hundred thousand dollars,
it’s on a smaller scale, however, than good old Lotus Land
extravaganza.

But it’s lively and, as Weintraub describes it, undidactic.
Based on his 1961 novel of the same name, it is not, Weintraub
emphatically states, nostalgia. “Filmmakers now thirty-five to
fifty years old can look back and examine and relive the
forties — that’s not nostalgia. The director, John Howe, and I
are the same age. I wrote the first draft and then he worked
with me. We had fun comparing adventures.

“That’s why so many films are being made about the
forties. Experiences are vivid, new and exciting when you’re
just starting out, as we were then. I look back with affection,
but I like the times more in retrospect than I did then. From
now on films about the past will become very routine, like
mysteries, westerns, a genre.”

This one in particular is a comedy about a young reporter.
Weintraub says it isn’t autobiography. “‘The characters and
events are take-offs of things that did happen. They’re exagger-
ations and composites and thereby rendered fictional.

“The hero is a bit biographical. But he has a lot of the
characteristics of people of that era. Young people starting out
were very different then, less self-assured, more afraid of losing
jobs. Bosses were more autocratic. There was more tension in a
job. The world was a little more Victorian.

“My attitude to the material hasn’t changed much, I don’t
think. The basic things are the same. Maybe I’ve become more
generous in that in the film I’ve let the guy get the girl.”

The project was adapted from Weintraub’s novel, first
published in 1961. But the Board.wasn’t the first to try to film
it. “The Film Board actually saw the idea first, and it started
off as a Board project. Then they decided not to do it and we
got permission to take it outside. In 1971 Potterton got
private backing and the CFDC voted the money. Then, just
before the Potterton start, things took a turn for the worst in
the tax situation, and the project was shelved. The Board
accepted it as part of the Language series. Acting as producer,
I and John Howe sold it to them.”

But that doesn’t mean a line-by-line reproduction on
celluloid of the printed page. ‘““The film can accommodate one
third of the book’s action because of running time. Therefore

you have to select, and once you start selecting, things take on
a different importance, a thing takes on a different life of its
own. After I started writing the script I never glanced at the
book. All the dialogue in the film is different from the book —
all I’ve kept are some of the characters and some of the
incidents. Also, they speak differently for the ear than for the
eye.”

Weintraub is conscious of both means of communication,
because he’s been involved in both. He started as a reporter
and editor for a daily newspaper, and went from there to
filmmaker. He was a freelancer for the Board and joined the
permanent staff in 1965. His films have included the Between
Two Wars series, Celebration, Challenge for the Church, A
Matter of Fat, Turn of the Century, and Aviators of Hudson
Strait, recently seen on the CBC-NFB Arctic evening. He’s also
produced Nahanni, a very popular theatrical short in the
sixties.

All of which experience leads him to some theories about
filmmaking, and some comments are prompted by Why Rock
the Boat. “It’s a comedy,” says Weintraub, “but you have to
be careful in adapting the book. One thing I’ve found is that
there’s greater opportunity for fantasy on the written page

’ than on the screen. There are episodes in the book that

couldn’t happen, they’re exaggerated to the point where
they’re satirically saturated, they sort of defy gravity. Silent
films went in for fantasy, and sometimes the Marx Brothers
could do it. In modern times it just doesn’t seem to work, with
the possible exception of Woody Allen. But his stuff is all
fantasy.

“Film comedy is much more realistic, more like social
comedy. Film really brings you down to earth in a sense, and
it is most effective in that way. Real people in real surround-

* ‘poo [eIsod

as ee a. _

* MID
* ssoIppV
* QUIEN

LINIdd 3SV31d

CANADIAN FILM INSTITUTE,
1762 CARLING AVE.,
OTTAWA, ONT. K2A 2H7

Composer John Howe recreating the Big Band Era

“There are many things the French would not show
because they take for granted that everyone knows them, but
the rest of us are ignorant about them. If the French network
needed films about Toronto, we would suggest French film-
makers go to Toronto. This doesn’t happen because Quebec
filmmakers are profoundly uninterested in Toronto.”

Then there is the problem of location of filmmaking, in fact
centralisation of it in one or two production centres. The
regional vs central question, debated constantly among film-
makers as well as anyone else in the media. Weintraub accepts
it, even while noting the recent effort by the Film Board to
establish regional production centres. “It’s not a Canadian
invention, the location of one or two production centres. It’s a
world-wide phenomenon. Look at London, Tokyo, L.A. and
New York. The best people gravitate to the centre. If you
want to make it in the big time, that’s the condition.

“If you want to stay home, there’s nothing morally wrong
with that, it’s just that you must reconcile yourself to doing
local things. If we could overcome this and have all program-
ming spread out, we would be the first country in history to
do it. All arts historically have had centres.”

The conversation has continued into the sound studio,
where John Howe’s original 1940’s style musical compositions
are being recorded. Weintraub changes the topic back to Why
Rock the Boat, and comments that the rushes look really
good. It’s reassuring, because although he has had much
experience, he finds the audience’s reaction more difficult to
predict in a comedy. He says, “I sometimes sit there and really
worry about whether people will laughe’

Director John Howe

Cinema Canada 19

wezMe gy (OLOUd

Photo: Baltazar

Photo : Baltazar

William Weintraub

18 Cinema Canada

WILLIAM WEINTRAUB

PRODUCER,
“WHY ROCK THE BOAT?”

Chief Recording Engineer /Mixer

SaLW E> [Sse a

Writer-producer Bill Weintraub described the scene to be shot
on the sound stage in front. Big band music drifted out of
corners, and the cast took their positions. ““A young reporter
applies for his first regular job. The stern, patriarchal editor
demolishes one applicant after another. Finally our boy is
accepted.”

It may sound like something out of Hollywood in its prime,
but it’s really happening this past spring, and at the National
Film Board! The production is Why Rock the Boat?, and it is
one of the features in English Production made during the past
year. On a budget of around four hundred thousand dollars,

41 4 _= os : ”~ x a

gOlt permission to take it outside. In 19/1 Potterton got
private backing and the CFDC voted the money. Then, just
before the Potterton start, things took a turn for the worst in
the tax situation, and the project was shelved. The Board
accepted it as part of the Language series. Acting as producer,
I and John Howe sold it to them.”

But that doesn’t mean a line-by-line reproduction on
celluloid of the printed page. ‘‘The film can accommodate one
third of the book’s action because of running time. Therefore

you have to select, and once you start selecting, things take on
a different importance, a thing takes on a different life of its
own. After I started writing the script I never glanced at the
book. All the dialogue in the film is different from the book —
all I’ve kept are some of the characters and some of the
incidents. Also, they speak differently for the ear than for the
eye.”

Weintraub is conscious of both means of communication,
because he’s been involved in both. He started as a reporter
and editor for a daily newspaper, and went from there to
filmmaker. He was a freelancer for the Board and joined the
permanent staff in 1965. His films have included the Between
Two Wars series, Celebration, Challenge for the Church, A
Matter of Fat, Turn of the Century, and Aviators of Hudson
Strait, recently seen on the CBC-NFB Arctic evening. He’s also
produced Nahanni, a very popular theatrical short in the
sixties.

All of which experience leads him to some theories about
filmmaking, and some comments are prompted by Why Rock
the Boat. “It’s a comedy,” says Weintraub, “but you have to
be careful in adapting the book. One thing I’ve found is that
there’s greater opportunity for fantasy on the written page

‘ than on the screen. There are episodes in the book that

Photo: Baltazar

couldn’t happen, they’re exaggerated to the point where
they’re satirically saturated, they sort of defy gravity. Silent
films went in for fantasy, and sometimes the Marx Brothers
could do it. In modern times it just doesn’t seem to work, with
the possible exception of Woody Allen. But his stuff is all
fantasy.

“Film comedy is much more realistic, more like social
comedy. Film really brings you down to earth in a sense, and
it is most effective in that way. Real people in real surround-
ings demand more naturalism.”

Bill Weintraub moves on to a related topic, his avowed
preference for a journalistic approach in film. He wants a
cautious, questioning eye trained on a subject, be it a fictional
adventure or a true examination. And he’s very positive about
who should do the viewing.

“Tt believe in the journalistic principle: If I want to have a
good film about Saskatchewan, the last thing I would want is
to have anybody from Saskatchewan make it. He can’t see the
forest through the trees. He doesn’t know what we want to
know about that place. But the journalist is the representative
of the ignorant public.”

Reminded of the French filmmakers who became upset
when informed that Adieu Alouette, the NFB series on
Quebec, was assigned to an English unit, Weintraub agreed
with the decision. ‘““My principle applies there too. They do
make films about and for their own culture and audience. But
what the French Canadian wants to know about Quebec
culture is quite different than what English Canadians want to
know.

Composer John Howe recreating the Big Band Era

“There are many things the French would not show
because they take for granted that everyone knows them, but
the rest of us are ignorant about them. If the French network
needed films about Toronto, we would suggest French film-
makers go to Toronto. This doesn’t happen because Quebec
filmmakers are profoundly uninterested in Toronto.”

Then there is the problem of location of filmmaking, in fact
centralisation of it in one or two production centres. The
regional vs central question, debated constantly among film-
makers as well as anyone else in the media. Weintraub accepts
it, even while noting the recent effort by the Film Board to
establish regional production centres. “It’s not a Canadian
invention, the location of one or two production centres. It’s a
world-wide phenomenon. Look at London, Tokyo, L.A. and
New York. The best people gravitate to the centre. If you
want to make it in the big time, that’s the condition.

“If you want to stay home, there’s nothing morally wrong
with that, it’s just that you must reconcile yourself to doing
local things. If we could overcome this and have all program-
ming spread out, we would be the first country in history to
do it. All arts historically have had centres.”

The conversation has continued into the sound studio,
where John Howe’s original 1940’s style musical compositions
are being recorded. Weintraub changes the topic back to Why
Rock the Boat, and comments that the rushes look really
good. It’s reassuring, because although he has had much
experience, he finds the audience’s reaction more difficult to
predict in a comedy. He says, “I sometimes sit there and really
worry about whether people will laughe’

iezeyyed 100d

Director John Howe

Cinema Canada 19

First generation Time Index clock unit (about 8”
wide)

Second generation Time Index clock shown with
Nagra SN recorder.

Inside view of Time Index Bench Reader, showing
Integrated Circuits and modular construction.

Harris Kirshenbaum

20 Cinema Canada

The technical development department at the National Film
Board is involved in a constant programme of research and
testing of mechanical aspects of film equipment. When we
visited the Montreal headquarters I found the department
busily sitting there, watching a machine they had built strictly
for the purpose of punching the playback, stop and rewind
buttons on a Sony videocassette machine. The idea was to see
how long the VTR would last under constant use. This kind of
testing is performed on many types of audio visual equipment
and the results are made available to A.V. buyers at school
boards. The reports are not yet published for general reader-
ship.

Ralph Curtis is head of the engineering department respon-
sible for this testing. His department has also been responsible
for development of a 3-D television display system. That
system is projected for use only with short educational
programmes where factors of eye-strain do not become in-
volved. The process involves two mixed monochrome signals
appearing on a colour monitor and being viewed with red-
green 3-D type glasses. Ray Payne was director of laboratory

- and technical operations for almost thirty years, and is retiring

this summer. Many of Canada’s leading laboratory people have
started their careers with his department. Mr. Payne spent the
past year working as Technical Consultant to the Commis-
sioner. Doug Ruppel has been named the new director of
technical and production Services at the NFB recently.

Also conducted under the department is tremendous re-
search into new developments. There is, of course, a fully
equipped film laboratory within the Board, and most of the
equipment is home made — 16 and 35mm processors for black
and white and colour as well as various printers. A 35mm Arri
processor was acquired to handle the volume of work that
went into Expo 67. Perhaps the most interesting and inventive
development of this department is the removal of the last
stumbling block of documentary filmmaking — the slate.

Picture the film crew, setting up a small scale interview in
the home or office of the subject. He is cool and calm,
discussing his particular specialty with the interviewer in
knowledgeable and accurate terms. The director calls ready,
and the lights go on.

‘“‘August 20, Roll 1, Scene 1, Take One.”

BANG

Suddenly your lucid, expressive, interview subject is a
babbling moron who can’t put two words together.

“Cut. Somebody get him a cup of coffee. We'll try it

again.”

“Fake .2°*

BANG.

And so on.

So let us examine a system that with minor modifications
to your camera and recorder, no matter what brand of
equipment you are using, will allow you to use as many
cameras and recorders on the shoot as are necessary and with
no slates of any kind allows each device to start or stop at will.
Further, when you place the whole thing on the editing table,
it brings itself into dead sync, automatically.

Not only does it have all these qualifications, but it is
basically a simple operation. Time Index makes use of the
technology of Integrated Circuits (I.C.’s) and Light Emitting
Diodes (L.E.D.’s) and the field equipment will be much
smaller than the ‘“‘chocolate bar” crystal unit for the Nagra.
This state-of-the-art electronic technology is closely tied to
new devices like the digital wristwatch on which the time
lights up at the push of a button, the large format flat TV
screens, and data retrieval systems which feed information to
cash registers from a wand passed over price tags. The

wall-hanging TV screens, by the way, are much closer than
ever to mass production, and digital watches will be all over
the place by the time Christmas shopping starts this year. The
photographs show two generations of Time Index units, the
first being quite large, the second almost identical in size to a
Nagra SN recorder. The third generation units will be about
the size of a matchbox.

Leo O’Donnell was resident genius at the NFB for some 15
years. Currently he is head of the sound engineering depart-
ment at Film House. The Time Index system was developed by
him at the NFB, and is now in a workable stage for both 16
and 35mm. A similar system has been developed in Germany
and as soon as a standard is set, we can begin to look for
production models of the system. the SMPTE Journal will
carry a full report on the Time Index system in the fall, so we
will not attempt to explain the actual operation of the whole
system here and now, rather how the system can be used by
filmmakers.

The Time Index system offers continuous automatic identi-
fication of all sound and picture material. The time of day and
date is recorded each second on both the original picture
negative and sound material. After processing, the coded
information can be used to establish parallel sync between
picture and sound. It can be interpreted visually and aurally as
well as being machine readable. It also makes possible the
matching of one or more picture films with one or more sound
recordings of the same event.

The code is generated electronically and translated to a
binary system. The output is then recorded on both the
picture and sound originals independently, by small electronic
clocks. The camera code is a series of light strokes placed in
the sound track area by an L.E.D. in the camera gate. The
sound code is recorded as a composite of sync track frequency
and Time Index pulses fed to the recorder at the usual sync
track input. The sync track signal is otherwise normal and the
recording produced remains compatable with all resolvers used
for sync playback. The Time Index pulses are recorded as a
325 Hz tone modulated by the recorder’s own electronic
clock.

At the start of a shoot, all equipment is plugged into a
synchronizing unit and the real time is injected into each unit.
Once this has been done, each unit maintains its own time
with crystal accuracy and the crew can forget about it.

In the sound transfer stage a Time Index transfer channel
separates the Time Index pulse train from the sync signal and
records the pulses on an auxiliary track on the magnetic film,
outside the sprocket holes. The sync frequency is fed to the
playback resolver in the conventional way. The Time Index is
also passed through a shift register to provide a selectable time
delay before registering the signal on the sound film. The shift
register is provided at the input to allow some flexibility in
positioning the pulses transferred to the film. At the time of
shooting there is a built-in delay of eight frames in the pulses
to the camera light. As the sound pulses are advanced on the
camera pulses it is possible to reposition the sound pulses
during the transfer by selecting the amount of this delay. This
feature is essential due to the several possible arrangements of
sync track heads relative to the audio record and play heads,
and the necessity to locate the light emitting diode in different
places on the aperture plate of different types of cameras.

There are several projections for sync-up methods when
using Time Index. New editing tables, such as the Atema
(Technical News, Issue No.14) will have modular additions
to add a digital read-out for each picture and sound
Time Index information. Syncing could then be done by

merely matching the numbers. A further modification will
enable the editor to position the first frame of the picture in
the gate and have the machine automatically search the sound
track for the matching sync point, which would stop either at
the playback head, or at a pre-selected index position.

The codes can also be read on a bench set-up, with special
readers installed to allow the digital codes to be displayed. On
the. prototype the film can pass through the readers at any
speed over a wide range and produce an accurate read-out. A
small loudspeaker is provided to permit the location of
individual pulses on the picture material.

The Code

The full Time Index code is recorded once every second, over
a range of 24 frames. The start of the code covers two frames,
and is used as an indicator for the start of shot. This occurs
once the camera has reached running speed and is indicated by
the code for binary 15, which is indicated by using the full
output of the L.E.D. This start mark is the one which allows
the editing machine to make the automatic sync-up. Frames
three to fourteen contain the direction indicator used to allow
the code to be read with film running in either direction, as
well as the exact time in seconds on a 24 hour clock. Frames
fifteen to twenty-four offer the five additional numerals which
are user selectable. These may be the month and date if that
information is necessary, or shot numbering may be incor-
porated into this function.

Frame by Frame Identification

Some users of Time Index may feel that a once-per-second
repeat rate of the code is insufficient. As all the information is
recorded in each field, though, there is the possibility of
increasing the rate of information repeat through a process of
interpolation. Since the camera recording a sync sound scene
would not likely run for less than one second, there would
always be at least one time code recorded during every camera
run. Once the information is on the camera original, a small
computer circuit integral to the printer could have the capa-
bility of putting out an exact code giving each frame a
consecutive Time Index Code. This code could be placed on
the print in the form of optically printed edge markings,
magnetically coded information applied to a stripe, or even
inked numerals differentiated from edge numbers by a colour
code.

The alternate proposal to Time Index set out by a Euro
pean designer involves a more complicated camera installation
that must be synchronized with the camera pulldown move-
ment. Time Index does not encounter this additional problem.
The European system can supply frame by frame identifi-
cation at the camera stage, but the equipment is more complex
and expensive. That system, furthermore, is more difficult to
read without digital readout.

As soon as a Standard is decided upon between the two
systems, we can begin to expect Time Index modifications to
appear, and for them to become available quickly and inex-
pensively. What it takes for these developments to make it
onto the scene is demand from the users of equipment to their
suppliers. With any luck, Time Index will be used by the CBC
for its film coverage of the 1976 Olympics, where a large scale
documentary unit could best demonstrate its advantages to the
entire industry.

Then visualize the same scene as set at the opening:

“Roll sound”

‘“‘Roll camera.”

‘““And now, Mr. President, just where were you on the night

Sean

Cinema Canada 21

TOM DALY

Laurinda Hartt

Photo: Baltazar

The National Film Act of May, 1939, created the National

Film Board on the recommendation of film documentarian,
John Grierson. He had, at the request of the Canadian
government submitted a report in 1938 urging the establish-
ment of a new film agency to co-ordinate and oversee all
government film production.

The Film Board’s concern, as described in the Act, was with
films ‘“‘designed to help Canadians in all parts of Canada to
understand the ways of living and problems of Canadians in
other parts.” Initially, however, the Board operated in an
advisory capacity to the Canadian government Motion Picture
Bureau which had been making films for government depart-
ments since 1921.

Then in June, 1941, the Board absorbed the reluctant but
outdated Motion Picture Bureau, and became actively involved
in the production of films.

Tom Daly was one of a number of university graduates
(including James Beveridge, Michael Spencer and Donald
Fraser) who at the invitation of Film Commissioner Grierson
joined the newly-formed Board. Now a senior producer with
34 years at the Board, Daly says: “‘This place has been my real
education after I thought I had given up an education for some
temporary war work.”

The following is a compilation of some of Daly’s observa-
tions relating to Grierson, the history of the Board and the
nature of film producing.

“One of the things that has been striking me recently is that
the newest generation of young people coming into film are
the most like the people Grierson picked to join the Board.

SS a a en a eee

‘“‘An interesting thing to me is that most of the young
people I meet who are trying to get into film are much more
interested in working with the community, with other people
— to be in teams together, to share work. They care about the

22 Cinema Canada

PIONEER
PRODUCER

Mee :

audience and the people they shoot. They don’t want to
misuse or use the people. It’s as if they have the same purposes
Grierson brought to us when we knew nothing. This is the first
era in a long time in which I feel that young people coming up
are of the same mind as Grierson.

“It makes me particularly happy because I think it’s a very
good, human approach from which we can derive a lot of hope
for the world at a time when there’s so much negativity and
violence. This type of person is not only not destructive but
somehow gives a little lift towards something that could be
done, or something that is possible to feel or something that
actually exists and isn’t just a dream.

“Grierson was going to be directly involved in the film
about himself. Unfortunately, very little of it was done before
he died in February, 1972. The students at McGill University
in Montreal where he lectured prior to his death were very
excited about him, and his challenging of them on all matters
whether philosophical, moral or filmmaking. They felt he took
them as definite people worthy of criticizing on a fundamental
basis. If he was hard on them they felt he was hard because he
cared.

“Grierson always began by telling people: ‘You’re not
here for your own pleasure or vanity. There are needs to
fulfill. If you make a film about certain people, it must be
recognized as true by those people, and be something they
recognize themselves in. It’s not just what you want to do
or how you would use them.’

“I think that the crucial factor about the present time is
that people find it very hard to feel that they count as
individuals. There are such huge governments and companies
on an international scale — every organization so big that an
individual is lost in it. Committees do things instead of
individuals. Everybody wants to get in on the authority but

nobody wants to be in on the responsibility. In a time like
this, anything that can give an individual the feeling that it’s
worth being an individual, that in fact nothing can ever happen
unless one or more individuals do it, then all of a sudden it just
changes their life view. I think that Grierson was a person they
could see was an individual and they could see that he had
done a great deal by being one, and so it just renewed their
lives a little bit.

“Certainly he’s left behind a lot of momentum — people
that knew him, not only the old ones but the new, have the
same feelings about it. I think these younger people are much
less naive about the world than we were and therefore, might
be starting a bit further ahead. Of course, the world has much
graver problems to meet, so maybe relatively they’re not that
much further ahead, but it is still an advantage.

“I think it is interesting there have been different periods of
growth at the Board:

“Like the wartime period which came almost on top of the
origin of the Board. The Board was set up for the country as a
whole, then the war came. So there was that whole concentra-
tion on achieving the aims of winning the war as well as an
attempt to create an understanding of what was going on in
the world at the time.

“Then there was the five or six year period (1945-50) of
adjusting to peacetime. First of all, of course, trying to find
out what peacetime purposes should be, and then trying to
take a group of people and adapt them to dealing with these
purposes. It was very different — being positive and synthetic,
instead of analytical and pro-war winning, which had been
very specific.

“Onward from around 1950, there developed the very first
signs of Canadian identity and character, both on the part of
filmmakers and their subjects.

“From then, until about 1967, there was a great progression
and procession of all sorts of exploration and development in
many fields — technical, experimental, animation, candid,
actuality — all except possibly the area of dramatic fiction, in
the English area at least. And then there was the development
of the English and French branches. All that was an expanding
thing that looked like it might never stop. It was the austerity
program that broke that all apart and made things very
difficult.

“Now the period from 1968 on has been characterized by
the Board being in a world it is unsure of its direction. As a
result, the organization has reflected the general uncertainty of
direction. It is becoming clear that the Board has to and wants
to be related to all those ways in which people can live
together in difficult times.

“The Challenge for Change program, an experimental pro-
gram whose mandate expires in 1975, is an indication that the
Board and the government no longer wish to, or have to, deal
with what individual filmmakers would like to do. There is the
realization that to have the right, the opportunity and money
to do what they would like to do, individuals first have to have
a world in which the world can exist.

“In the original years, there were no credits on films. It
was just a ‘Film Board Film’ — everybody involved felt they
shared in it and nobody was singled out. Then as years went
by and we got into more distribution, the vanities of the
people wanting to have their names on the screen, and the
distribution need to have things and people identified led to
the use of credits.

a es eee So en eS ea ae

“As long as I can contribute something active and original
to the work at the Board then I’ll be happy. The only time I
wondered about it was during the difficult period after 1967.
1967 was kind of an euphoric peak with Canada’s centennial
and Expo ’67 — I had an absolutely marvellous year editing
Labyrinth which was the first time in years I only had one
thing to do for a year. It was a big thing but to be able to
concentrate on one thing was a delight whereas producing

means constantly being divided into little compartments that
are forever competing for your attention. Well, after that came
the whole complexity of the government’s austerity program,
the money problems, the political problems, the development
for the first time of union/management problems. And the
whole question of aging and at the same time having the
inability to take on new people because we couldn’t add to
staff. Then you really wonder whether you’re really worth
your weight in man years as against another need — you have
to think about that very much... it’s a very real question.

“At the moment I think producing is not a popular kind of
work. Everybody would like to be a director, to be an author
— to have the fun, the freedom and the choice of selecting the
subject and doing it the way you like with a team at your
command.

“Perhaps the climax of all that came in the ‘do your own
thing’ era when people liked to be paid to do what they
liked thinking that is the best thing for the world and the
country and the people. Whatever they did in spirit would
be best for everybody else. That was really totally opposite
to the Grierson approach.”

‘Maybe people don’t mind producing their own films but
they don’t want to produce other people’s because it takes
their time for other people’s pleasure. It’s not a very popular
thing because it means responsibility and authority — and
authority is not a very popular question right now. For this
reason, it’s hard to get younger people to take on their own
kind of responsibility in this field.

“I’ve always been learning something about a subject or
another way of making a film. That’s perhaps one reason I’ve
stayed as long asI have. With the variety of people with whom
I’ve worked — their different ways of making a film; their
different subjects.

“My wish as a producer was to help them make their film
their way, only perhaps better than they could themselves. If
that was possible — it was a pleasure for me and a help to
theme’

Grierson in his early years at his Ottawa office

Cinema Canada 23

STILLS FROM N.F.B. FILMS...

Pees ae * ‘ :
Les Acadiens de la Dispersion

Why Rock the Boat?
O.K. Laliberté

Cold Journey

24 Cinema Canada

For the first time in 2 1/2 years, a general catalogue is being
prepared by the Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Centre.

If you have film(s) in the Centre, make sure we have all
necessary information by September 1, or your work won't
be listed.

If you: are involved in booking films, orders for this cata-

logue will be processed starting on September 1 also. Cata-
logue $2.00.

The Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Centre, 406 Jarvis
Street, Toronto M4Y 2G6, phone (416) 921-2259.

* ore
eS eS

Dave Herringto Mike Ryan an Jacobson

Dave Herrington. Our Chief Timer. Why he’s doing that is because he knows
how to do his stuff. So that clients don’t have to go to half a dozen A-prints before
colour balances are right. Before he was with us, he was with Rank, and with
Police Surgeon, and with Ross Briggs and VIDefx. Impressive technician.

Mike Ryan. Our Post Production Co-ordinator. That’s because he knows how
to uncomplicate messy problems and keep things rolling smoothly. Keep the lab
on time. Keep clients smiling. He learned how to do all these things the hard way.
Six years as a freelance production manager. Six years reping labs. Glad he's
on our side.

Ian Jacobson. Our re-recording Mixer. A fairly fussy job, but he does it well.
He spent 5 years with the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation. Then another
five as music recording mixer with the CBC in Toronto. And then sharpened that
training at Film House as a re-recording mixer on commercials and documen-
taries. A very good feel for what he does.

Our house is your house.

Cinema Canada 25

Photo: Baltazar

If the main purpose of the Film Board is to communicate, and
film is the means of communication, there is one further step
to be considered, and it concerns communication too: telling
the audience about the films. That job is up to the Informa-
tion and Promotion Division, under director David Novek.

There’s more, however, to this section than the title
implies, as Novek points out. ““We’re responsible for informa-
tion and promotion, but we also look after matters such as
festival representation and public relations. The information
section, under Ron Jones, looks after dealing with the press —
press relations, press conferences, launching films. Then there
is the promotion section under Robert Cardinal, which looks
after printed material, displays, exhibits, posters and adver-
tising. Francoise Joubert heads up the festival section — she’s a
recognized film authority and travels not only from the Film
Board but also on her own as a jury member or delegate very
often — and is responsible for our participation at festivals.
Finally there’s two people to look after public relations —
tours of the building, setting up special screenings. I get
involved personally in some of this activity, such as the setting
up of the Board of Governors meeting in Toronto this spring
and the reception with it.”

Thirty people, including freelancers and secretaries, deal
with an annual production of 140 films (this year over 170
films because of the addition of the language series) and a
catalogue of one thousand current titles. The division is
responsible for all printed matter except books put out by the
still photo division in Ottawa. “And there is other activity
where the people concerned are responsible and we help out —
the technical newsletter, Challenge for Change, Potpourri from
the Toronto office.

Two major annual projects are the Catalogue and the
Annual Report. In addition, when Canada began its Cannes
push, Novek’s department assumed the job of preparing the

26 Cinema Canada

DAVID NOVEK

Stephen. Chesley

promotional material. All of the festival work was added two
years ago.

What the information and promotion consists of is not
uniform. “Some films don’t get press releases. Actually we
have no centralized mailing list, except for a press list. Each
office has its own list for promotion in that region. There’s no
direct head office supervision — they’re responsible.

“Every film has an information sheet about it, which comes
out when it goes into community distribution and is made
available for libraries and lending. There’s no mailing list for
these sheets, they go out to the individual offices, and they
decide who should get them, based on potential interest.

“If we sent one of these to every newspaper, we'd be
wearing out our welcome.”’

Novek is very conscious of that welcome, and he explains
that the Board doesn’t simply promote every picture released.
There are priorities. “If a film is going into theatres, we have
to promote it. Or on TV, of course. We must alert the mass
audience. Special series, such as Corporation, receive special
promotion. Another priority is if the film has a special and
specific community interest. For example, we’re promoting A
Votre Santé, a two-hour film about a hospital emergency
ward, to the medical profession. And of course if a film is
involved in a festival such as Cannes or Berlin, it receives
promotion, because the film has a particular merit.

“If a film has a limited distribution area, such as Quebec,
we don’t promote it outside. The only exception to the
general guidelines for choosing is the Challenge for Change.
They don’t like a lot of publicity, but prefer working in the
groups.”

All of this activity costs money, of course, but Novek,
unlike most government employees and certainly everyone in
the film industry, feels that his budget is adequate. ““We could
always use more, of course, so that we could promote more

films. But you can’t compare our situation to the private
sector which has a real problem. They should figure it as a cost
of production. When we’re setting up the Cannes material,
they’re always scrounging, and they’re still scrounging at
release time. Look at Duddy Kravitz, the public was waiting
for that film. You can’t just make films, you have to sell them
too.”

Selling them means launching them properly, Novek feels.
‘Promotion can only bring people to the theatre the first week
or two. After that it’s up to the public. Eventually what makes
a film is word of mouth, and word gets around pretty fast.

“An adequate budget to release a movie in Toronto or
Montreal is twenty-five to thirty thousand dollars. That’s for
creation of material, a purchase of twelve thousand dollars
worth of ad space and air time, press conferences and screen-
ings, all for a two or three week launch. The money comes
from the distributor and the theatre chain, as well as the
producer.

“Even after all of this activity you can’t tell about success.
Le Temps d’une Chasse was launched in Montreal and when it
came to Toronto we spent five thousand dollars. Nobody
went. Nobody went in Quebec either, it ran only three weeks
in Montreal. If it had made money, it would have kept
running.

“O.K. Laliberté got great reviews, coverage, and it didn’t
take off. I don’t know why. Why didn’t Kamouraska make it?
You can have a fine film that isn’t a great box office
attraction.”

Film Board participation in openings and promotion for
features is on a more active level than most producer’s,
especially since the Board doesn’t also act as distributor.
“We’re the only organization in Canada with an ongoing staff
and continuity, so we handle the press conferences, photo
coverage. We make the trailer and the commercials. The
distributor gets involved on the advertising side — he has to sell
it. He’s bought it from us, so he should have a say. Our artists
and writers work, but the distributor has an input.

* déshoner: 878-9562, vos verrez bin’

“Buying space and time is a collaboration. They put in
money and we can add to it. We can say‘Let’s do something
extra’ It depends. Basically it’s their responsibility. They give
us an advance against distribution and we can turn that money
back into promotion, but in the end it’s up to them. It’s a
distributor’s job to release the film.”

Novek sits back in his chair, the ever-present cigar giving the
impression that you’re talking to a Hollywood veteran. Novek
is tall and makes his presence felt, if in a quiet and friendly
way. He’s a pro, and after years of sort of making films and
putting them in distribution and then forgetting to tell anyone
that they exist, it’s good to see the Board achieving not only a
recognition of the necessity of publicity, but even a sophisti-
cation in the execution of it, due in no small part, one
suspects, to the presence of Novek. He has been at the Board
since 1969,

“I was a reporter for the Montreal Herald until 1957, then
aa radio editor and Bell Canada public relations person. From
1963 to 1968 I was editor and publisher of the Jewish
Chronicle Review, but I left that. The Film Board had an
ad in the paper that I answered, but even though they liked me
they said they would rather promote someone from within. I
took another job and two weeks later they called me and I left
it.

“T was one of the Canadians who knew about the Film
Board,” he laughed, “‘and I liked film.”

Of course there’s also the other side of communication: the
feedback. And the Board has a very active audience. But the
feedback doesn’t necessarily come back to headquarters, says
Novek. “‘The National Film Board is situated where the people
are, that is, if they know there is an office in Winnipeg they'll
send their comments there. The office may send them directly
to the filmmakers. Letters to the Board, TV response, they go
to my office, and we channel them right through to the
filmmakers.”

At the Board, the communication travels from idea to
production to release to feedback; the complete journey. ¢

Producing, Financing and
Distributing Film

Paul A Baumgarten
and Donald C Farber

$14.95

a
The Film Industries
Practical Business/Legal
Problems in Production,
Distribution and Exhibition
$6.95

selection of current
cinema books in
the world
covers all subjects
New Catalogue

$2.50

G92a

Television Production
MacRae/Monty/Worling
$6.50

Television Graphics

Youge St Ron Hunell
- 5.85
Teronte 5a °
Film Design

9641.6407441

Ed: Terence St John Marner
$3.95

Cinema Canada 27

ROBIN SPRY

A. Ibranyi-Kiss

DIRECTOR, ACTION / REACTION”

When asked about some of his favourite NFB films, Sydney
Newman recently replied, “I was very pleased with this little
half-hour film which I saw on the CBC the other day written
by a staff member, Ian MacNeill, and directed by Robin Spry.
(Downhill) A little fictional thing about a man who was aging
and who has had a love affair with a young girl; he has a heart
attack and comes to peace with the fact that he’s in his forties
and is married, with a young son. It’s a very nice little short
story and it was beautifully directed by Robin Spry. Incident-
ally, Robin Spry has just completed a marvellously revealing
film about the whole events of October in Quebec in 1970.
(Action/Reaction) He presents a kind of media witnessing and
a kind of eye-view of the events that’s really terrific! It’s best
summed up in its closing line, that one thing Canada learned
out of all this is that it lost its innocence. And we did lose our
innocence in 1970, with the streets of Montreal filled with
soldiers and machine guns. ... We just finished this film about
two weeks ago and we’re preparing a French version of it.
That’s going to be a very impressive film when it’s seen. It’s an
extraordinarily good documentary! There are wonderful revel-
ations of René Levesque and the Prime Minister in absolutely
unguarded moments that are very, very revealing.”

This rave review was prompted by what are actually two
45-minute films. Action documents the events of October
1970. Included in the film is footage of Pierre Elliot Trudeau
in Bermuda shorts, marching alongside Chartrand and striking
miners in Quebec in the 1930's, facing heavy machine-gun
posts manned by police protecting the mines for the bosses.
Later in the film, Trudeau as Prime Minister is shown defend-
ing the War Measures Act. ... Reaction, on the other hand,
takes a unique angle on the events by exploring the feelings of
Montreal’s English community during the Crisis. Viewed to-
gether, Action/Reaction is a strong statement on the Canadian
political scene.

How had such a gentle, soft-spoken man as Robin Spry
decided to make such a film? “I was in the middle of preparing
a feature when I heard on the radio that there were soldiers in
the city. I went down and looked and there were indeed
soldiers in the city! I was so amazed by that, that I rushed out
and just shot for a few days. I dropped the thing later and
went back to try and get the feature together, and that didn’t
come off. Then I worked with Ian MacNeill, who wrote
Downhill, on a big science-fiction-ecology feature which I
really liked, and that didn’t come off... . Then I was working
on Downhill — which was an experiment in trying to work
with somebody else’s personal ideas. It was almost desper-
ation, because I had two features turned down and I hadn’t
shot any film for four years outside of the five days of
Action/Reaction. So I had to do something. Action/Reaction
was done as a response to a situation My feeling was that there
was an obligation to cover that.”

Spry had intended to make only Reaction at first. He
wanted to film how English Canadians in Montreal responded
to the events. “In this situation, the English were the minority
and they were suddenly under pressure. Their normal situation
of being on top of the affairs was suddenly reversed. There-

28 Cinema Canada

fore, it was almost as if I were an anthropologist looking at my
own species. I was looking for a way of drawing a picture of a
minority community, as well as a picture that would find the
rich and powerful supporting the government and the poor
and underprivileged being against the government. That is
basically what is in the film. On the average, my thesis proved

-to be correct.”

What Spry had not expected, was that there were also
people in Westmount who were extremely critical of Trudeau
and poor people who were happy to have the soldiers there.
He also discovered, “that the question of separatism was a
function of, and directly related to, money. The language line
becomes blurred when you draw the social line through it —
they sort of overlap. And there is such a thing as an
English-speaking separatist.”

Reaction, shot from the announcement of the War Measures
Act through Laporte’s funeral, consists of several different
groups of English-speaking Montrealers openly talking about
how they feel about what’s happening around them. As Spry

says, some of the reason for the degree of honesty and
openness was that, “We shot at the emotional peak of the
whole thing. All the pent-up talk was suddenly released.”

What of the difficulties facing a crew running around with
film gear in a city under siege? ‘‘Well, even with the whole
Film Board establishment behind you, it was pretty hard to go
more than a couple of blocks without being stopped for
questioning. If you would have been an independent French-
speaking filmmaker trying to shoot in the East End of
Montreal. .. . I think it would have been very hard.”

Which explains why Action/Reaction, amassed from footage
shot by 2 French and 1 English crew, but produced by the
English part of the NFB, is the first film to come out. Spry
definitely feels that the French Production must make a
“four-hour massive epic’”’ on the October Crisis. ““Eventually I
made the film because nobody else wanted to make films with
the material. Action was an accident because initially I didn’t
think I should make that film. I thought the French Unit
should.” The Board’s French filmmakers had seen the footage,
but most thought it was too long or they didn’t see a film in
the material. As a result, Spry had to make Action in order to
explain what Reaction was all about.

The only questions now are, when is French Production
coming out with a film about October, 1970, and when will
Canadians get a chance to see Action/Reaction?

Robin Spry doesn’t know the answers to either of those
questions. He’s busy trying to get another feature off the
ground. The feature he was working on around the time of
October 1970 had already been approved by the programming
committee and was in rehearsals when Sydney Newman halted
production on it. Why? It seems Newman didn’t like Spry’s
first feature, Prologue (which included footage of the 1968
Chicago demonstrations, interviews with Abbie Hoffman, and
basically dealt with the question of militant protest vs.
communal retreat) and also didn’t like the subject matter that
Spry was dealing with.

“I was very interested in exploring sex as part of a
relationship, in a non-exploitative way. Perhaps that’s not
possible, I don’t know. But I felt that the only place you could
make an honest film about that was at the Film Board.
Outside the Board I could certainly be accused of doing it for
personal gain, but there’s no way that a film with a lot of sex
in it made at the Film Board would ever benefit me financial-
ly. That to me is 99 per cent of the justification of the Film
Board — that you make your films there and there’s no
financial connection between what you do in the film and
yourself. I love that aspect of the Board... .”

Spry feels very privileged to be able to spend his life making
films with relative freedom. He feels the most dangerous
temptation at the NFB is deciding the trouble isn’t worth it
after being hassled for certain subjects. ‘““This leads to a kind of
self-censorship that in time becomes more acute than the

actual censorship at the institution. It has a long-range Chinese
drip torture effect on you and that’s very destructive.”

“There are two ways you can function at the Board — you
can keep attacking the frontier or work well within it. Some
people are lucky enough to have interests that don’t impinge
on that frontier and they can follow their genuine interests
without spending a lot of time recutting films and going to
meeting after meeting trying to find out whether they can
release their films. Of course, freedom has its cut-off point,
and a lot of my energies go to hassling around the cut-off
point.”

The feature Robin Spry is now trying to get off the ground
deals with a TV journalist whose personal, professional and
financial lives are all building to the point where he either has
to crack up and go under or step out of his present mode of
existence. “It’s about the problems of working at the Film
Board, in a sense. It’s about how far you can lend yourself to
an institution without contributing to the negative aspects of
that institution.”

On the basis of percentages, Robin Spry figures he’s got a
chance that this feature will be acceptede

(From Eleanor Beattie’s “A Handbook of Canadian Film”)

Biography

Robin Spry was born in Toronto in 1939 but spent his childhood in
England. While there, he was involved in the organizational side of
theatre, continuing this involvement in Canada with the founding of
classes on film acting technique given at the National Film Board.
Spry began his film career at Oxford and the London School of |
Economics where he made a number of short, dramatic films. He
first joined the Board in 1964 as a summer student, and in 1965
full-time, to work with John Spotton as an assistant editor. He was
later assistant director on Don Owen’s High Steel and The Ernie
Game. His feature film, Prologue, was the first Canadian feature to
be accepted at the main festival in Venice.

Filmography

1966 Change in the Maritimes (Métamorphoses dans les Maritimes).
Prod: Joseph Koenig; NFB. 13 min. col.
Miner (Une Place au soleil). Prod: John Kemeny, NFB. 19
min. col.
Level 4350 (4350 Pieds sous terre). Prod: John Kemeny,
NFB. 10 min. col.
1967 Illegal Abortion. Prod: Guy Glover, NFB. 25 min. b&w.
Ride for Your Life (Mourir champion). Prod: John Kemeny.
NFB 10 min. col.
1968 Flowers on a One-Way Street. Prod: Joseph Koenig, NFB. 57
min. b&w.
1969 Prologue. Prod: R. Spry and Tom Daly, NFB, 88 min. b&w.
1972 Face Prod: R. Spry and Tom Daly, NFB, 20 min. col. and
b&w.
Downhill Prod: R. Spry and Tom Daly, NFB, 30 min. col.
1972 Action/Reaction

Robin Spry during the filming of ‘‘Prologue’’.

Cinema Canada 29

LEONARD FOREST

Ronald Blumer & Duncan Thorne

FRENCH PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE

Throughout its existence, the National Film Board has been
treading the fine line between civil service and anarchy. Part of
the reason that they have been able to turn out so many great
films comes from the way in which they are organized. It
comes in the long and winding procedure through which films
get proposed or requested and then finally produced but the
very bigness of the NFB is both its strength and its weakness,
A brief visit to its hospital-like corridors will quickly impress
even the most casual visitor with the enormous number of
typewriters and adding machines clicking away versus the
relatively few editing machines. And yet this top heavy
bureaucracy, when it works well, can serve as an agent to help
plug the talented filmmaker into what’s happening and, at the
same time, insulate him from the day to day vicissitudes of the
producer/sponsor relationship. A model for the Film Board,
indeed a model for creative activity within any bureaucratic
structure is French Production and the newly appointed head
of the French Programming Committee, Léonard Forest.

In politicized Québec, being a middleman between often
overtly nationalistic filmmakers and an organization whose
very mandate rubs against their grain, Forest himself has the
temperament and background ideally suited to this delicate
and often thankless job. Being an Acadian, he is in a better
position than most to view each side with certain healthy
detachment. At forty-six, he has worked at the Film Board
since 1953 and has been involved as either writer or director in
over a dozen first class productions. He is articulate and soft
spoken, deflecting difficult or embarrassing questions with just
the right combination of truth and diplomacy. His most recent
experience has been with Société Nouvelle, where he worked
with his fellow Acadians in the Maritimes, and his experience
as a social animator is put to good use within the structure of
the Board.

One of the most impressive aspects of the functioning of
the French Programming committee is the way in which it
operates. ‘““The committee is a collective process involving
filmmakers, producers and administrators’, explains Forest. “I
look on my job in terms of maximizing the flow of informa-
tion. The process of decision-making, the way these decisions
are made are vital parts of the collective process.’ And these
aren’t just words because there is something fundamentally
different about the structure and spirit of the French commit-
tee particularly when compared with its English counterpart to
maximize both the use of their limited resources and the flow
of creative juices.

“Previously, we had a system which left a lot to arbitrary
judgment. Someone in my position of the director of produc-
tion or even a producer could decide that he didn’t like a
filmmaker and therefore reject his projects. Seven or eight
years ago, things were reaching a very serious stage and it
became evident that this authoritarian set-up must somehow
be broken down. It was then that we evolved the idea of the
program committee. It should involve elected filmmakers and
representatives of the administration and distribution.”

The idea of a program committee set up in this way, while
relatively new to the English section, is somewhat of a
tradition among French filmmakers. The most impressive
aspect of the French unit is not so much its democratic nature

30 Cinema Canada

but the willingness of filmmakers to get involved in the sticky
process of collective functioning. Filmmakers elected to the
program committee must spend at least one day a week on its
work, but they seem to do so willingly. “If you want to make
a collective process work, it involves an awful lot of work on
the part of a large number of individuals. Through the years,
even before the establishment of our unit, French filmmakers
have had a long tradition of demanding to be heard; to share in

-some decisions and to offer suggestions and advice. There is an

awareness that after all, they are the people who are generating
production.”

One of the most difficult things for an outsider to under-
stand is the apparent ability of French filmmakers to have this
awareness of being part of a movement and still remain
individuals in terms of their own creative function. But it is
exactly this balance between private creativity and a sense of
collective responsibility that has made the National Film
Board the unique organization which it is.

“The most important factor in programming, apart from
our mandate and our responsibility to the public, is the
personal involvement and motivation of the filmmaker. From
past experience, we have found that you can have loads of

rezeyeg :010Ud

abstract intellectual material on a particular subject but it is
not the kind of material from which a film can result. A film
really gets made when some filmmaker wants to make it. A
program committee can dream up all sorts of wonderful ideas
for films but if there is no filmmaker around who wants to get
personally involved in that project, the film won’t get made.

It has now become accepted practice that the program
committee is not interested in studying a film or program of
films if there is not a filmmaker attached to it from the
beginning. A producer, or even myself, the director of pro-
gramming can, of course, in some ways initiate research in
certain areas on the condition that we go through the regular
process as quickly as possible — that we implicate a filmmaker
as quickly as possible. And filmmakers, through the program
committee, are not only involved in recommending individual
films, but they also deal in long range planning and priorities
into the kinds of films that we should be doing in the future.”

To see this process in action, one need only look at the
Language Drama Series. The Film Board was recently granted
two million dollars from the Secretary of State to make a
series of dramatic films to be used in language training. The
English sector used its share of the money to produce five
feature films and the results have been uneven. The French
sector used the influx of this money to make a series of
twenty short films and give young filmmakers a chance to
experiment with the dramatic short format. Not only have the
resulting films been excellent but twelve Québec filmmakers
have been given a chance to prove themselves while the lucky
few in the English unit were experienced filmmakers to start
with. It is this collective consciousness which allows the
French Unit to build up its creative resources and use its
limited budgets to benefit the filmmaking community as a
whole.

Because of its receptiveness, there is a close tie between
French Production and outside industry. The result is a free
flow back and forth between the two sectors and many
directors from Carle and Arcand to Jutra have been able to use
the NFB as a training ground to the mutual benefit of both
parties. A full thirty per cent of French production is done by
freelancers and in this way it is perhaps the French unit that
best reflects Grierson’s original founding idea of a National
Film Board — not an establishment of filmmakers, but a small
group of producers coordinating government film activities
using the creative resources of independent filmmakers.

However, many films are being made. Forest estimates
French production makes about 40 films per year — with
workshop staff amounting to 75 to 80 and freelancers making
about 30% of the films. Georges Dufaux, for example, whose
two-hour documentary on the emergency ward of Montreal’s
Sacre Coeur Hospital, A Votre Santé, was recently televised, is
now tackling a project on getting the elderly back into society.
Another filmmaker is working on a film about schizophrenia
which was approved after the committee discussed the idea for
two and a half hours with the psychiatrist who will be the
film’s focus.

There aren’t too many features in the offing, but one is
being worked on by Clément Perron, (writer of Mon Oncle
Antoine, writer-director of Taureau) which will evoke the
period of the anticonscription movement in Quebec. Forest
recalls Perron may have been too conscious of constrictions,
“He came to us with what he thought was a completed script.
The committee actually encouraged him to go further. He
went away quite recharged.”

Other projects? Robert Favreau is scripting a project on
institutional education; Héléne Girard completed a film on
female adolescence, Tamas Vamos is scripting a low-budget
film from a French-Canadian novel; Michel Régnier is editing
a 10-hour series to be shown by CBC on urban problems and
their solutions, and also in the offing is a series on health.
Other work includes preparing for the 1976 Olympics (the
NFB is the official filmmaker) and short fiction films for a
second-language learning program for adults, adolescents and
children, Tout le Monde Parlent Francais, while the anima-

tion unit, autonomous for about five years, now produces five
to six films per year. (See Film Reviews in this issue for a
review of Rien Qu’un Petit Chanson D’Amour.)

All, of course, is not peaches and cream. As French
Programming has found out in the recent past there are
definite limits to its scope of operation. The government film
commissioner Sydney Newman has personally stopped at least
one film during production (Vingt-quatre Heures ou Plus) and
likewise two completed films. Denys Arcand’s (On Est au
Coton) and Jacques Leduc’s (Cap d’Espoir) will never see the
light of projection bulbs. Forest, however, is uncomfortable
with the word censorship.

“Although easy to use, the word censorship is misleading.
The administration certainly wouldn’t use it. They would say
that they applied their prerogative to say a film will or will not
be done because it is not in the national interest. They think it
is their duty to define the mandate of the Film Board and
indeed there is no way that the program committee can be
considered a substitute for the Film Commissioner. I see my
particular position as one of setting up situations in which
maximum consultations can take place. A film may eventually
be turned down, but at least everyone involved will have a very
precise idea as to why.”

When faced with the question of how Québec filmmakers
are supposed to be involved in a process of making films
“explaining Canada to Canadians,” Forest smiles and with a
touch of weariness tells how he likes to express the Film
Board’s mandate as “explaining people to people”. His politics
are those of social change and he lives in a world of political
action rather than political and confrontational rhetoric. “I
was quite deeply involved in the Société Nouvelle/Challenge
for Change process,” continues the quietly passionate Forest,
“which I tend to consider a very important process. It has
been quite inventive of new modes, not only of filmmaking
but new modes of distribution. And out of this developed an
attitude of filmmakers as far as the kind of role they could
play within the community. I think Société Nouvelle has been
one area where it’s been possible to renew one form of
documentary filmmaking.

Société Nouvelle is a remarkable departure for the NFB. It’s
run by an interdepartmental committee in Ottawa on which sit
members of the Board and various government departments.
Its 40 staffers operate separately from the rest of the Film
Board but use NFB facilities and equipment. With a $1.6
million budget they work with different communities, but
instead of deciding what to film they let the people of the
communities decide what goes in and what doesn’t — a process
which can help them resolve local problems in the articulation
of their ideas. The Société Nouvelle/Challenge for Change
mandate runs out next Spring, and indications are that rather
than continue the program as separate units, the entire
regional production program will function according to Chall-
enge for Change principles.

Québec filmmakers’ concerns lie very much with their
nation, as they call it. This applies not only to the Film Board
but to most artistic activity in Québec.

“One must be careful not to think that because you are a
filmmaker, then automatically you are a radical. I think, in
more cases than not, filmmakers are very much part of the
society they think they are contesting. And an important
point that must not be overlooked is that French Canada, both
historically and geographically, is a much more cohesive
society than English Canadians seem to think they are. The
result is that French filmmakers have something much more
concrete to relate to. Their films cannot help but be a
reflection of the ongoing debate in Québec at the moment. I
suppose that this is what gives our films a focus and our
filmmakers a very special challenge. Their efforts in film
production of all kinds — feature and documentary are
received by a population which is very responsive. To a very
large extent, this is what it all boils down to: there is a demand
for our films.” e

Cinema Canada 31

Photo: Baltazar

Laurinda Hartt

An original member of the National Film Board’s animation
department established in 1941, and a former head of English
production’s animation department, Bob Verrall is now Direct-
or of English Production at the Film Board. When interviewed
in May by Cinema Canada’s George Csaba Koller, Verrall
sighted two areas of primary concern: the wise expenditure of
newly voted funds (available since April) in planning for the
next two years of film production; and the Board’s five-year
regionalization plan.

In the process of preparing a general position paper on
regional production for Assistant Commissioner André Lamy’s
office, Verrall was particularly conversant with the NFB’s
five-year regionalization program. He characterized the pro-
gram as being ‘“‘already well underway” with regional offices
established and active in Vancouver and Halifax. The Van-
couver jurisdictional area includes the whole of British Colum-
bia, with some production presently underway in the Yukon
and some “dealings’’ in progress with Alberta filmmakers. The
Halifax office is concerned with the entire Atlantic region
consisting of Nova Scotia, New Brunswock, Newfoundland
and Prince Edward Island. In Winnipeg, an office is being
established to deal with Canada’s mid-west, an area which
includes Ontario’s Thunder Bay region along with the prairie

32 Cinema Canada

ROBERT VERRALL

English
. Production

provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Edmonton
is favoured as a possible future office location because it is
situated in a corridor leading to the North and the Mackenzie
region. In the Far North, experimental workshops are active in
Cape Dorset with a comparable workshop proposed for Fro-
bisher Bay. And Toronto, previously a low priority in any
plans for regionalization, will see the establishment of a
regional production office.

Verrall believes that people in the Montreal-based NFB are
realizing that there have been no connections at all with the
“concentration of filmmaking expertise’? present within Tor-
onto’s dynamic filmmaking community. The low-priority
given to regional development in Toronto was a result of the
mistaken supposition that Toronto, with a “multi-million-
dollar’ film industry as well as CBC’s headquarters, would not
need the Board’s assistance. In other regions, it was felt, a
small amount of money could accomplish a great deal but in
Toronto such small assistance would be lost. According to
Verrall, this thinking has changed, “Toronto is a depressed
area, but in a different sense. Even if it’s a modest Toronto-
based program I think it would have very beneficial results in
that the NFB would become connected with all those people
who, at the moment, are voices on the telephone or who send

in often excellent ideas. We haven’t been organized to take
advantage of that milieu which is real and there, and I think
we should be contributing to that milieu. You should be
hearing more concrete plans for the Toronto and Ontario
region in the months ahead.”

Since that May interview, Verrall has informed Cinema
Canada that by spring of 1975, there will be a man chosen (no
names yet, but they have strong candidates and an outside
chance that someone from Toronto might get the job) who
will reside in Toronto and co-ordinate planning to set up an
extensive regional production facility. Toronto’s office will be
of “significant size’’ compared to other regional offices, but
when questioned about the rumour that this office will handle
50 to 75 per cent of English production, Verrall said, “‘That’s
just a gleam in somebody’s eye.” This office will, however,
include some French production and make extensive use of
freelancers since only the core will be composed of staff. ...
Ed.

Verrall described several inter-related objectives of the
regionalization plan. One of these is to reconnect the Board to
a vast country inhabited by people who are less inclined than
they once were to move to major metropolitan centres.
“Talented filmmakers and technicians are increasingly reluct-
ant to move from their regions; they’re prepared to be
unemployed rather than move into Montreal or Toronto.” He
noted that unemployment even in these major centres is
somewhat responsible for such reluctance. ‘But’, he added,
“what is different is a determination to stay put because
there’s some value in staying put — it’s a wish not to move
from an environment you know and that you’re in love with.
So an element in this regional plan is to take advantage of that
determination.”

A second objective is to assist the establishment of “non-
NFB production centres” that are burgeoning everywhere in
Canada. ‘‘We’re convinced that we could play a useful role in
helping to establish such centres which may be located within
a university program, a provincial program or a citizen’s group
program. The undertaking of this kind of activity may be a
decision at headquarters, but we really have to have people in
position in the regions who are sensitive to the regions and to
the preoccupations of the people of those regions. This kind of
activity is not film production in the traditional sense of Film
Board work, but assistance to non-professional or non-NFB
groups to produce film whether they use video-tape, Super 8
or 16mm. We’re convinced that videotape and Super 8 are the
exciting technologies for regional activity, certainly if you’re
talking about groups other than professional having access to
the technology of film production and what we call access to
the media.”

To explain the specifics of the “non-NFB production
centre” concept, Verrall cited the 1967 Fogo Island project.
The film program was established as part of Memorial Univer-
sity’s Extension Service and was concerned with problems the
Extension people were very much engaged in studying: com-
munity development on the island, and the turmoil being
caused by the federal government relocation program affecting
the people of the Newfoundland and Labrador region. The
newly created government/NFB Challenge for Change program
was looking for a place to test out its theories of using film as
an agent of social change, and Newfoundland’s Memorial
University welcomed the program into its midst. “Some 20
films were made and, in a way, they weren’t films but records
of meetings etc. held by a number of fishing communities,
then played back double system to those same groups and to
other groups in other villages.

“The result was the articulation, for the first time, of the
problems of people who really hadn’t been heard from. The
government hadn’t heard from then and had not expected to
hear from them. These people were having their lives planned
for them with perhaps the best intentions in the world but
there had been no effective means by which the affected
people could talk back. One idea of the program was to

provide a means by which the government would listen to the
concerns and ideas of the Fogo Island people. From the
outset, it was not seen as an NFB undertaking but as part of
our Challenge for Change program in association with Mem-
orial. We trained people in the use of film, sound and video
equipment and then, after two years, we withdrew. That
program is still going on, funded by their own resources. It
didn’t become part of the Film Board’s establishment and
therefore it’s what we call a ‘non-NFB production centre’, to
identify a program that the Board had some role in establish-
ing. ... For us, the Fogo Island Project is an example of what
could be done in a poor region without spectacular production
resources. It’s a program now studied throughout the world, a
touchstone for people interested in the use of media for social
change.”

When asked how this concept relates to an area like Toronto
— would the NFB hire someone like Don Shebib to work with
a community group in Cabbagetown? — his reply was “Why
not? Or it may be that there are ... in fact I’m sure there are
many willing and capable people who, with a little assist from
the Board, would be up and going. We’re convinced of it.”

“This non-NFB production centre idea is part and parcel of
the Challenge for Change program, but Challenge for Change
has been helping the Board rediscover a purpose, in that the
regional offices that exist — in Vancouver and Halifax — are
doing a considerable amount of work with the schools and
regions — at Simon Fraser, Bathurst College, Memorial. Even
in the holding of workshops and seminars for students and
teachers, we can play a useful role.”

A third objective of regionalization is to provide bases of
operations from which crews going out from Montreal could
work on a regional film program, whether on a sponsored film
or a film being produced as part of the Board’s own program.
“We see it as a way of resisting the temptation to become
locked into concerns within the Montreal region. It’s a temp
tation — shared by English and French production — that you
shoot everything in Montreal, that the people who do your
research are based in Montreal, that the freelance directors,
editors and cameramen and so on, are all based in Montreal.
Without saying there is something wrong with that, we’re
saying that some of this kind of activity should be going on
outside of the Montreal region.”

French production will join with English in a regionalization
program. “In Winnipeg,” Verrall said, ‘‘they’ve already excited
the interest of French-speaking filmmakers living in the region.
And there are a number of proposals from the Atlantic region
for French-language programs, proposals which have been
routed to French production through the Halifax office.”

About possible administrative difficulties in establishing and
co-ordinating regional concerns, he admitted, “Administrative-
ly it’s a bit mind boggling — how to regionalize and still remain
well managed and organized. But it’s important that we do so
and we’ll find the structure to make it work.”

A total of 124 films were produced at the Board last year in
French and English production combined. The total rises to
165 if English-language versions of French originals and
French-language versions of English originals are included.
‘“‘And given our present plant and staff, I don’t think we could
go higher than that in terms of production. If we had more
money we’d probably expand our use of freelance talent and
expand the regional activity. But unlimited funds is not a
problem we’ve had to cope with yet.”

Does English production plan to increase its involvement in
feature production? “The Board has been producing features
for many years and I don’t think they’ve produced them all
that well. Although, in recent years, French production has
had considerable success in their feature film program. The
French feature film program has grown up at the same time as
it was growing up outside; the two were linked and there was a
kind of chemistry which favoured this in Quebec.

“For the Board, it’s finally a question of what we are going
to do with what feels like a small amount of money, given all

Cinema Canada 33

the ideas that are stock-piled in the place.

Feature film production will continue but only as a modest
part of total production activity. ““We could wipe ourselves out
if we got going into too many features at any one time.”’ Three
features are presently in varying stages of completion, ““but the
brake is kept on quite strictly.”

The three features to be completed by English production
this year are Why Rock the Boat?, Cold Journey and Conflict
Comedy. At the time of this interview, Verrall stated that
Mort Ransen’s controversial Conflict Comedy would be com-
pleted despite delays due to major rewriting and re-editing but
it was close to a final cutting copy. He then discussed the
motivation behind the Board’s selection of feature film subject
matter. “It was the concern of the Film Commissioner that if
we get into feature film production it should be because the
theme was of a particular nature. ... Cold Journey is a very
good example of a story which attempts to recreate what it
feels like to be a teenage Indian in a remote part of the
country, trying to make a connection with the outside world.
Although it would be our hope that the film would be of such
wide interest that it might gain an international audience, it
was nevertheless felt that it was important for a Canadian
audience. It should be done, and if it weren’t done by the
Board, it might not get done at all.”

Another facet of this past year’s English film production
was the making of a series of “language dramas” originally
planned as packages of four 20-minute films, “each tied
together as a continuous story because it was believed that it
was a good way of packaging films useful in the teaching of a
second language. Sure, every director and writer involved in
this had in mind the possible use of segments joined together
as a continuous story. In fact, it’s been agreed that two of the
films, (Heatwave and A Star is Lost) should be versioned as
continuous dramatic films but not as features. We’ve shown
them both to the CBC and there’s interest in them being used
as television dramas. .. . Maybe more of them will be.”

“Everyone connected with the program agreed that it’s

——_—

34 Cinema Canada

uneven if you apply the criteria that you should apply for
television drama or feature film. The purpose was to work
with limited vocubulary structured in such a way that there
would be core scenes which relate to teaching-aid materials
being prepared at the same time. Those were very real
limitations placed on the writers and directors. Therefore it
was uncertain whether any of those programs would work as
continuous dramatic films. But we learned a lot about what’s
involved in producting a number of dramatic films all at once
and for relatively low budgets.

Based on this, Verrall believes that with some guarantee of
revenue from a distributor or from a co-partner such as the
CBC, NFB English production could make about three dra-
matic films annually without making an inroad into money
reserved for all other priorities such as regional production,
Challenge for Change, the non-theatrical and classroom film
programs, and the television program.

“I think it’s important for the Film Board to develop its
capability in dramatic filmmaking, just as it was important for
us to develop our capability in animation. Over the years,
some outstanding animated films have resulted from this
determination. It’s only a small part of what goes on at the
Board, but it’s an important part. For one thing, we’ve trained
a.lot of animators you can now find working in Toronto, in
downtown Montreal, and in Vancouver. So the Board’s feature
filmmaking program could be seen as an important element in
the total picture of film development in Canada, but I don’t
think we’ll ever be in the business in a big way.”

Immediate future film production within English produc-
tion includes plans for a two-and-a-half hour CBC-TV special
on the Atlantic region (already underway in May) with a
tentative air date set for the end of March, 1975. There are
plans for eight half-hour films about British Columbia and the
West Coast under the present series title, The Coastal Regions.
The films will run on CBC on consecutive Wednesday evenings
in the same time slot as the previous NFB-produced series West
and Adieu Alouette, and are scheduled to run from January to
the end of March, 1975e

Inuit animation from Cape Dorset

OOOPS

Most of the material for this issue was gather-
ed on a very intensive week-long interview
marathon at the Board’s Montreal head-
quarters. Yours truly returned with over 30
hours of tape and numerous rolls of exposed
Tri-X, and only a little wiser as to what the
Board is really about. During the arduous
editing process, the picture emerged which is
framed by these covers.

Due to circumstances beyond our control, as
they say, we were unable to include inter-
views with the following department heads:
Yves Leduc, Arthur Hammond, Len Chatwin
and Wolf Koenig, Head of English Animation.

Yves Leduc Len Chatwin

Arthur Hammond

A major story on Mr. Hammond and the
outstanding Corporation series will appear in
the next issue of Cinema Canada and one on
Mr. Koenig’s contribution to the Board over
the years in a subsequent one. We weren’t
able to interview Messrs. Leduc and Chatwin
yet, but the next time we’re in Montreal. ...

We’re also sorry that we couldn’t meet all
the 1,000 or so other workers at the Film
Board without whose creative contribution
ONF/NFB would be just letters and not the
universally recognized symbols of quality that
they aree G-C.K.

STORY BOARDS
ANIMATION

SLIDES, FILM STRIPS
COMPLETE A/V SERVICE
COLOR CORRECTIONS

€&8 MS ART SERVICES
LTD, TEL. 363-2621

A COMPLETE

CREATIVE SERVICE

IN ALL PHASES

OF SPECIAL
PHOTOGRAPHIC EFFECTS

FILM OPTICALS OF
CANADA LTD
TEL. 363-4987

A10 Adelaide St. West
Toronto MOV=-18o !

Cinema Canada 35

DONALD BRITTAIN

Ronald Blumer & Susan Schouten

GREEN STRIPE

AND COMMON SENSE

Documentary film makers in general do not tend to be
household names, but even among the inner circle of those
familiar with this genre, the name Donald Brittain is surpris-
ingly unknown. While there are magazine articles and book
chapters appearing on Richard Leacock, the Maysles, Allan
King, Fred Wiseman and other such documentary luminaries,
nothing has been written on Donald Brittain. What’s strange is
that here is a man who has not only made more films than
most of the others (for example, in 1966 he worked on seven
major films), but during his career has managed to pick up an
astonishing number of awards. The list reads like a film festival
atlas; Grand Prize at Leipzig, major awards at Melbourne, San
Francisco, New York, Venice and the American Film Festival;
twice nominated for an Academy Award, and three times
winner of the Mulholland Award as the Best Canadian Dir-
ector. Many of the classics of the National Film Board in the
last ten years, the films we tend to remember, are the work of
this one man. In addition to his own films, he is frequently
called in as a ‘film doctor,’ often uncredited, to salvage a film
that others have made a mess of. Not surprisingly, though his
public image is virtually non-existent, he is known and re-
spected by those in the business.

“TI had heard a lot about Don before coming to the Board,”
says Les Rose, a rookie in the growing league of Brittain
apprentices who inhabit the damp basement editing rooms of
the NFB several floors below the bureaucrats. “Before I met
him, I imagined him as some immense impressive character. He
was the master at whose feet all of us could sit and learn. And
then this guy walked into the room with scotch stains all over
his jacket, his shirt hanging out, his hair ruffled and his glasses
crookedly falling off his nose and I said to myself, ‘my god, is
this supposed to be the giant of documentary films?’ ”’

Brittain has spent all but five years of his career making
movies for the National Film Board. A large number of his
films have been on television and although not many people
know his name, most Canadians have seen and remember at
least one of his films.

One of the most remarkable of these, Memorandum, was
made in 1966. Described by one reviewer as a film that yells
innuendos and screams its quietness, the film is an account of a

ere

36 Cinema Canada

reunion of Jewish survivors of the Nazi death camps, twenty

years later. Bosley Crowther, who rarely ever mentions docu-

mentaries, gave it a glowing review in the New York Times and
it won Brittain five prizes, an Academy Award nomination and
‘The Lion of St. Mark,’ grand prize at the Venice Film
Festival. Equally honoured was the film Fields of Sacrifice
commissioned three years earlier by the Department of Vet-
eran Affairs on the rather unpromising subject of “showing
Canadians, young and old, how well the graves of our war dead
in Europe are being maintained.” Brittain took this subject,
one which everyone at the Board had been trying to avoid and
in the words of NFB executive producer Tom Daly, “‘turned it
into a film that everyone wished they had made.”

It is his epics that are best remembered but most Don
Brittain films are just about people. His portrait of Leonard
Cohen won the American Film Festival in 1966 and captured
the poet’s wit and love of life with an impressively deft
lightness. He puts us into the swimming pool of a considerably
heavier subject, Lord Thomson of Fleet, a real life Mr. Magoo
‘who owns more newspapers than any other man in the
world.’’ Called Never a Backward Step it is again a profoundly
telling portrait and again the prizes. But Brittain’s most
exceptional film must be Bethune. “Six-hundred million
Chinese know his name’ and in 1964 Brittain introduced him
to his fellow Canadians and got himself a job offer from Otto
Preminger.

After a brief romance with multi-screen filmmaking here
and in Japan and a stab at feature film production, “‘making a
bunch of deals by the pool in Beverly Hills, all of which fell
through,” Brittain has returned as a freelancer to the National
Film Board. Like some prodigious chess master, denied his
game for the last couple of years, he has returned to docu-
mentary with a vengeance; ten productions last year, five more
coming up.

Cigarette dangling unlit from his mouth, Brittain himself
comes on as a character from some 1930’s movie; the unkempt
sardonic newspaper man with an off-handed sense of humour,
a good taste for whiskey (Usher’s Green Stripe, “a real bargain
at $9.80 a bottle’’) and a passion for baseball. At work, he
battles with his material often late into the night, but his sense

x ee cg fs 5 = 4 . . Sa
i SA S * 4 ’ ae
ee < q ‘ : . .: . oe
pe ee GR ar sea : eS" te : g bs 3 ’ oy
Fr ican eS ee : Ry at

et ee

John Spotton CSC and Brittain Shooting ‘‘Memorandum”

y is not intellectual, but a totally
e most straightforward documentary
“to be good. That’s what makes it work.
ying to find something that the audience
t which is inevitable the moment you turn
one with subtle things, it’s the tone of
ombined with a certain visual set up against

vent before. All these things make a moment
n’t just put a formula in a computer,
diting room, month after month

of drama and fun surrounds him with young and enthusiastic
apprentices who look up to him as “The Veteran’ and
consider him their best friend.

Brittain is a very unusual filmmaker in many ways. He
started his career twenty years ago and made his name on films
that most other film makers would not want to touch, the cof
sponsored documentaries by government agencies such as the someg
Department of Labour and the Dominion Fire Commissioner. m
He was able to turn mediocre subjects into great films because
of a basic originality; his ability to set things on their head an
see old material with a fresh perspective. He seems to have the
knack of approaching each new film with a total openness
he is not impeded, as are so many others, by a preconceil
ideology. The result is a sort of courage vis-a-vis the subj
and he is not afraid to show what is happening, warts an

One unique aspect of Brittain’s professional character
strong desire to work with other people on a project, do
teaming or sometimes even triple teaming a film. He love
excitement and energy of people working together. Altho
he long ago hung up “old number 6” at Ottawa’s Gk
Collegiate, the cutting room has just become another loc
room complete with camaraderie and towel-snapping reparté
It is in this informal but “serious business” atmosphere thai
Brittain conducts his one man i ool.
experienced film make
asks you what you

In terms of t
partly because
many in the

7

9m watching other National Film
i with Stanley Jackson’s commen-
B. Kroitor, Koenig and Daly, these

A film like Lonely Boy knocked
it, it showed me what could be done
ys, they worked! I think that they used
at ni t. Maybe I started to feel guilty
T seemed to be spending most of
| working hours with the guys
e Lonely Boy and you say to
d making something half

. In editing, the
ds this material
terial work on

cop-out and
medium and
strong narra
has that pro
ability to be

equally to. tf eS : me ‘of the North as the management liked to call it)

shots and telli 3 :
structure the oe # gps made it _as far as Smith Falls or

of his editors
practically bloa
come to films |
lenses, moviola
they are inte
Somehow, ‘p
even though
Brittain hard
he is not a
strength and
Marrin Cane
about his lo
lately and he
if he drank. When
their stature, their ph i :
mental and moral aan gi he chirp of the Cape Breton cricket. All
of human detail — the

filmmaker and makes
interesting.

“T feel that the Fi
work. Most people
should all be sent
to see what it’s like

plane that
land. Allan
who came
very heavy
to keep me
stament and
ig along and
myself into.”
istant everything,
‘80 on. We sat around

a

ets. Everyone seemed to
. | kept hearing that they
w profile. There was this
r “W” in the back of the
hung over me when they
‘¢ was being moved upstairs.
and I knew my days were

“Ym not particular!
verted people on subje
films for a mass audien

r of the sponsored film unit gave
Oo write, but also direct two films:
nd Winter Building, It Can Be Done.
town and shoot them and if they
e I’d have a job when I! came back. I
and they were pretty bad, but the
ord went back to the brass and I was

hi rost people and hold their
interest is not that ea o and most people consider
documentary dreary by ition. It has to do with being
honest with the subject, but it also has to do with making all
the curves. The moment the audience can predict what is going
to happen next, you’re dead. You’ve got to fool them, but
you’ve got to fool them in the right way.

Brittain (1955) on location in Buzzard, Saskatchewan for his first jo Cinema Canada 37

I Make Good Movies Because I Can Spell

At this time there was a million feet of war footage sitting
in a vault in Ottawa. They kept saying that someone had to
put this stuff together but no one would touch it except this
guy Stanley Clish. Well he touched it and then they asked me
to come and write it and be editorial supervisor. Thirteen films
and a year and a half later, I had become a war expert, me who
had never seen a shot fired in anger. The Canada at War series
was a utilitarian job, it had to be done and I got a great deal of
credit for doing it.

Bethune was never officially approved by the Film Board.
Throughout the making of the film, they were very lukewarm
because of its political implications. We had this one guy
Brown, the only Canadian who had been with Bethune in
China and he was dying of cancer so we managed to get
permission to film the guy. We got other interviews together
and I worked on it on and off for one year. I sweated blood to
put that film together and I remember the day it was finished.
I walked home and stayed under the covers for twenty-four
hours, my nerves were shot and I was completely wiped out.
The same thing had happened in the Canada at War series. I
would go to the CBC sound archives and I would listen to war
material for ten hours at a stretch. When I came out of there, I
didn’t know where I was. With Bethune, I was so totally
involved, that I thought I knew the guy personally.

All in the Connections

Around this time, I was breaking out of scripted film-
making. I was getting fed up with my endless research that
never seemed to get turned into film. Shooting equipment had
gotten lighter, easier to use and less lighting was required.
Also, by this time, I was getting a track record and could sell a
film with just a treatment. Instead of a detailed script, I began
to work on a sort of gut instinct of what the film was going to
be all about. Memorandum for example, started with two
ideas, the banality of evil thing and the fact that some Jews
from Canada were going back over there. That was all I had.
We just went and shot anything that looked like it would work
in any way shape or form, we started to make connections on
the spot. Memorandum took nine months to cut and when we
finished we were left with ninety-two edited sequences we
never used.

To make a good documentary, you have to have the time
and you have to have the flexibility. A lot of guys go in rigid,
“I'm the director, I’m in charge and I’m going to overpower
the material.’ That’s a terrible mistake. When you are out
there shooting, you are collecting raw material and that’s all.
In editing, the fewer your preconceptions towards this raw
material the better. You’ve got to let the material work on
you.

Editing for me is positioning. A sequence which was dead in
one position, becomes fresh in another. The splices are where
its happening and its all in the connections. All of a sudden,
you realize that you are getting from one place to another in
the right way. In editing I look for intent and emotion and the
ability to perceive emotion is what separates a good filmmaker
from a traffic director.

Arthur Hammond, Donald Brittain and Lord Thompson

38 Cinema Canada

Se epee re Sees ee ee
“There was this place where you were sent, corti-
dor “W” in the back of the third floor. The smell
of death hung over me when they informed me
that my office was being moved upstairs. Seventy
five bucks a week, and I knew my days were
numbered.”

Hired Gun |

I feel that the Film Board is a privileged place to work.
Most people here don’t appreciate it. They should all be sent
into the outside world for a year to see what it’s like. Ideally
they should fire half the staff and start dealing with freelancers
but they can’t. They are locked in a box and freelancers are
regarded as a threat.

Film Board recruiting has been poor. When I came back
from Japan in 1970 I really felt that the creative lifespan of
this place was over. The management may have been at fault
but that was not the only problem. There are a lot of people
around who have brilliant minds but are very mediocre
filmmakers. Some of them are wasting their lives here and it’s
tragic that somebody at some point didn’t come along and say
“forget it.” Kroitor and I used to sit around at meetings and
play this game. Of the seventy-five people around us, how
many people would you hire if you were setting up your own
company? Maybe a dozen; and the rest just shouldn’t be here.
I am hard on the Film Board simply because it’s such a
fantastic place that it should be getting 100 per cent from
everyone here, not its present 30 per cent. 1 myself am not on
staff because I am essentially a very lazy person. If I got intoa
situation here where I could do nothing, I would do it. Greed
is a great spur to creativity.

Without my hook-up with the National Film Board, I could
never have done what I did. Nowhere else could I have gotten
the time or the freedom. Aside from those passing moments of
suicidal despair I am really very content with what I am doing.
I think of myself in a sense as a hired gun, but I must rely on
others to give me the right cause.

Born in Ottawa in 1928, journalist for the Ottawa Journal, 1951 to
1954. Joined NFB in 1954. Brittain wrote the commentary for the
following films, The One Man Band That Went To Wall Street,
Stravinsky, What On Earth, The Railrodder, Labyrinth, Helicopter
Canada, and others. He produced Arthur Lipsett’s A Trip Down
Memory Lane (1965) and Fleur Bleu by Larry Kent (1972).
1958 Setting Fires For Science, 20 min.

Winter Construction, It Can Be Done, 15 min.

A Day In The Night Of Jonathan Mole, 29 min.

Canada at War, a series of thirteen films, 29 min. each

Fields of Sacrifice, 38 min.

The Campaigners for the CBC, 35 min.

Bethune, with John Kemeny, 60 min.

Mosca, for the CBC, 10 min.

Ladies & Gentlemen, Mr. Leonard Cohen, 41 min.
Memorandum, with John Spotton, 58 min.

Never A Backward Step, with Arthur Hammond and John
Spotton, 57 min.

Saul Alinsky Went to War, with Peter Pearson, 57 min.
Juggernaut, with Eugene Boyko, 28 min.

Tiger Child, with Roman Kroitor & Kiichi Ichikawa, for
Multi-Screen Corp., 20 min.

The Noblest of Callings, the Vilest of Trades, with Cameron
Graham for the CBC, 90 min.

The People’s Railroad, with John Spotton for Potterton
Productions, 60 min.

Grierson, 60 min.

In the West series, Catskinner Keen, Cavendish Country,
Starblanket, with John Kramer. Van’s Camp with Les Rose,
29 min. each,

Dreamland, (an early history of Canadian cinema) with John
Kramer and Kirwan Cox, 90 min.

King of the Hill, with Marrin Canell, 90 min.

Thunderbirds In China, with Les Rose, in progress.

Stratford In Australia, with John Kramer and Judith
Potterton, in progress.

1960
1962
1963
1964

1965
1966

1967
1968
1970
1971
1973

1974

Filming “Memorandum”’

Dr. Norman Bethune

An artist enters eagerly into the life of man,

of all men.

He becomes all men in himself.

The function of the artist is to disturb.

His duty is to arouse the sleeper,

to shake the complacent pillars of the world.
He reminds the world of its dark ancestry,
shows the world its present,

and points the way to its new birth.

He makes uneasy the static, the set and the still.

(From the soundtrack of Bethune, 1964.)

“He considered himself a judge of the bootleg whiskey that
might be brought to us. He considered that it was not a

fit whiskey unless it could be drunk like milk. He

prided himself that he could remember the taste of both —
good whiskey and milk.”

(from an interview in Bethune, 1964.)

It was well said that there is a rich man’s

tuberculosis and a poor man’s tuberculosis. The rich
man recovers; the poor man dies. This succinctly
expresses the close embrace of economics and pathology.

(from the soundtrack of Bethune, 1964.)

“Madrid. We were heavily bombed today. About 12 noon. Standing
in a doorway as these huge machines flew slowly overhead each one
heavily loaded with bombs, I glanced up and down the street. A
hush fell over the city, it was a hunted animal crouched down in
the grass, quiet and apprehensive. There is no escape, so be still.
In the silence of the streets the songs of the birds became
startling clear in the bright winter air.

If the building you happen to be in is hit, you will be
killed or wounded. If it is not hit, you will not be killed or
wounded. One place is as good as another.

After the bombs fall, and you can see them falling like
great black pears, there is a thunderous roar. From heaps of
huddled clothes on the cobblestones, blood begins to flow.
These were once live women and children... .”

(from the soundtrack of Bethune, 1964.)

Cinema Canada 39

memoranaum

This is one of the more popular sights at the camp.
The gallows where the Poles hanged the camp commandant,
Rudolph Hess, after the war.

His father meant him to be a priest. “I has to pray and go
to church endlessly,” he said later, “‘and do penance for the
slightest misdeed.”

They worked for the SS office of Economy and Administration.

Many were family men.
They would go home in the evening
and make love to their wives.

Heinrich Himmler was proud of them. He said once —
“To have stuck it out and remained decent fellows.
This is a page of glory never to be written.”

Here they come now: seventeen of them,
Late of the Auschwitz administration.
Some killed with gas and needle and club.
And some with the pointing of a finger.

Mulka, the adjutant, who kept track of things, and then
went into the export trade.

Capesius the druggist, who helped in 8000 murders,
but said he was always polite.

Doctor Klehr who punctured hearts with a needle
and Bédnarek who interrupted torture for prayer
and Wilhelm Boger, who beat men’s testicles until they died.

Breitwieser, the camp disinfectant officer,
was accused of dropping the first gas capsule,
but the evidence is conflicting.

Shobert, the Gestapo representative:
“T killed no one personally,” he tells the court,
and they let him go.

They rejoin the German crowd.

And who will ever know

who murdered by memorandum,

who did the filing and the typing from nine o’clock to five,
with an hour off for lunch.

And if it could happen in the fairyland of Hansel and Gretel,
and the Pied Piper of Hamelin, could it not happen anywhere?

And could it not happen anywhere,
if it could happen in the cultured land of Bach, Beethoven
and Schiller?

And how could it happen in a land of churches?
There were some martyrs it’s true —
but where were the other servants of Christ?

And where were the scholars of Heidelberg?

And how could it all have started in the happy land of Bavaria?
In this, the Hofbrau House of Munich,

Adolph Hitler first laid out his program to the world.

But why should that darken the festive summer night?

A third of them are tourists,

a third were too young,

and the other third is sick and tired of the whole business.

(from Donald Brittain’s commentary for Memorandum, 1966.)

40 Cinema Canada

The ruins of Italy speak of them...
The poppies of Flanders stand for them...
They still echo across Vimy ridge
The flatlands of the Dutch can hear them...
They are ghosts on the shores of France

They haunt the sea of Normandy,

They have left their scars on the soil of Picardy,
They are remembered by the sand...
They live in the minds of old men who still travel
the roads of the Somme;

They are the dead

The Canadian dead of the two wars.
A hundred thousand of them.

(From Brittain’s narration for Fields of Sacrifice 1963.)

The Commonwealth Memorial at Runnymede

On it, along with the others, the names of three thousand
Canadian airmen

who disappeared forever in the sky.

Memories over the gentle green heart of England...
Memories in the searing brown heart of Sicily.

Canadians moved through this cruel and alien land
once in a burning July.
The old people remember,
They had been starving and they were fed
And they heard stirring sounds of strange music
And they will tell the children.

An episode to be passed down
Now a part of the Sicilian legend of death
A part of the ancient land of blood.

(From Brittain’s narration for Fields of Sacrifice 1963.)

Chewing tobacco is part of the baseball ritual.
In the old days everyone did it
whether they liked it or not.

Today there are only eighty-six major league managers, players
and umpires who chew tobacco...
and most of them mix it with bubble gum to kill the taste.

The ivy covered walls of Wrigglie Field in Chicago have presented
problems.

When Lou Nabakov, the mad Russian, played center field, he
refused

to go near the wall for fear he might be allergic to the vine.

As this limited his effectiveness as an outfielder,

the manager tried to alleviate Nabokov’s fear by tearing down

a portion of the vine and eating it.

Nabokov was unconvinced and continued to ignore long fly balls.

(From Brittain’s narration for Ferguson Jenkins, King of the Hill,

1974) e oS
a= = ik
: = \Winy))}) Pe EON

}
me
- a xc

Ve

MODEL C

WEIGHING UP TO 20 lbs.

MODEL 50

AN EXCEPTIONALLY LIGHTWEIGHT HEAD
FOR CAMERAS WEIGHING UP TO 50 Ibs.

35 - 16 - Super8

For all your Eastmancolour, Ektachrome
and black and white
developing and printing needs

Magnetic sound striping
Optical and magnetic transfers

Contact: David Bier
(514) 861-5483 Montreal, Quebec

H2Z 1P4

QUEBEC FILM LABS

1085 St. Alexander St.

MODEL 100-c

A PROFESSIONAL QUALITY | ULTRA-SMOOTH, LIGHTWEIGHT
HEAD FOR 16mm CAMERAS HEAD FOR CAMERAS

WEIGHING UP TO 100 Ibs.

Balanced - In all positons without
springs.

Full Floating - Completely new drag
mechanism with all fluid drag

Full Modulating Drag Adjustment -
From zero to maximum

Drag Indicator - Dial 0 to 10 for re-
Peatable drag setting
Weight - 5 pounds

MODEL 20
MODEL 20 FOR CAMERAS WEIGHING UP TO 20 Ibs.

Nem Motion Picture Studio, Camera and Equipment Rentals
41 Scollard Street, Toronto, M5R 1G1, Ontario, Canada. Tel. (416) 920-5424

A lot can happen before
you get it in the can

Your casting is perfect, your
cameraman the best around, all
is ready to shoot, .. then your
lead breaks his leg or your film
stock is faulty or the weather
turns bad or the lab messes up
and you're in trouble...

But that’s the film game, isn’t
it? It is, unless you play it smart
and protect yourself

in a professional manner

with insurance.

It's not expensive but it is
important and it gives you peace
of mind because you can insure
against the bad things that can
happen before (or after) you get
it in the can.

Let's discuss it.

Arthur Winkler, CLU

Insurance for the Film Industry
— CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE AGENCIES LTD. —

3130 BATHURST STREET, SUITE 206,
TORONTO, ONTARIO M6A 2Y1, TELEPHONE (416) 787-0304

Cinema Canada 41

Photo: Baltazar

OYDNEY NEWMAN

George Csaba Koller

GONERNMENT FILM) OMMISdIONEI&

The man on the cover of this issue readily confesses to a strong
dislike of the factory-like appearance of Film Board headquarters, and
his antipathy grows every morning as his chauffeur-driven auto ap-
proaches the building. But, as Canadian Government Film Commis-
sioner and NFB Chairman, he is the undisputed king of this somewhat
tattered castle, making a salary of $42,000 per year, and rolling high
after four years’ reign.

The controversial impresario of Canadian cinema, flamboyant suc-
cessor to the late John Grierson and subsequent NFB bosses, former
student of Grierson’s and self-professed saviour of BBC drama; this man
who juggles a tea cup on his knee in Toronto for the press to show how
he gets by with a tight budget and who tells a Vancouver journalist
after a widely publicized ‘censorship’ affair, “Let them fire me, let
them find another pro like me,”; this is the Sydney Newman who
represents the Film Board toward government and the public and, in
this capacity, recently told a group of MP’s in Ottawa...

42 Cinema Canada

“Believe it or not, the National Film Board of Canada is 35 years
old,” began our Film Commissioner. “It is my aim thai it will
provide the necessary benefits to Canada of a social and interpretive
nature for at least another 35 years.’ Mr. Sydney Newman was
addressing the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and
Assistance to the Arts in Ottawa this past April. The Parliamentary
group responsible for monetary allocations in the above categories
quizzed the Chairman and his top department heads before reco-
mmending to the House of Commons that the NFB be granted its
$17 million outright, which is only part of the Board’s $31 million
global expenditures in the current fiscal year.

Self expression is the cornerstone of self-determination which, in
turn, is the basis of our Canadian sovereignity, ” continued, the Film
Commissioner, and then went on to detail all the recent, current and
imminent accomplishments of our federal filmmaking body. “At
the board we produce, distribute and research in every form of film
activity from creation to technology, and we disseminate our
knowledge and experience widely.” He characterised staff morale at
the Board as “satisfactory to high,” and recognized the need for
increased participation of the creative staff in management deci
sions.

The regionalization program was touched upon briefly, even
though it’s open knowledge that Mr. Newman has consistently
opposed undue emphasis on this. Nonetheless, it seems to be
progressing nicely. (Please see article on Robert Verrall elsewhere in
this issue. )

Mr. Newman claimed that relations between the NFB and private
industry are “better than they have been for a long time,” which is a
diplomatic way of saying that little love is lost between the two
groups in general, but that the Board’s conscious attempts to woo
the private film companies by sub-contracting out as much as 50 per
cent of their sponsored work ($1.5 million worth), and its promise
that an increase to 60 or 70 per cent is being considered, is bridging
the gap between the Film Board and the free-enterprise lobby,
which has been badgering Ottawa to cut Board spending and throw
more sponsored work their way.

Some recent highlights of NFB activities? Adieu Alouette, West,
and the presently rolling Coastal Regions series for the CBC, will be
augmented by films on Ontario in 1976-77. What better way to
please the hearts of MP’s who hail from coast to coast? Radio-
Canada has shown its regular fifty ONF films during the past year
and Mon Oncle Antoine had an audience of 2.5 million on that
network, second only to the Canada/USSR hockey series.

Board features released during the previous fiscal year were
Taureau, Le Temps d’une Chasse and O.K. Laliberté, as well as Cry
of the Wild, which has grossed millions in four-wall exhibition deals
throughout North America. (The Board expects to earn only
$250,000 from this film by 1975, since they claim that most
four-wall money is eaten away by advertising and distributor’s
percentages. This conflicts sharply with what the Globe and Mail
printed about the deal, but Messrs. Newman, Vielfaure and Novek
claim that Betty Lee was misinformed. Maybe all concerned should
go on The Great Debate and have it all out with Pierre Berton as
moderator. It may not be wild, but we could all have a good cry
afterwards.)

NFB theatrical shorts in Canada had over 17,000 bookings last
year, an all time high, said Newman. He singled out the Société
Nouvelle/Challenge for Change Program, which the Board produced
with eight other government departments, and whose mandate runs
out next Spring. The Film Commissioner called the Program “‘one of
Canada’s greatest achievements. If the Film Board had done nothing
else in its 35 years, this program alone would have assured its place
in history.” He summed up with: “‘Sophisticated technology, cheap
to buy, and easy to use in man’s quest for a better democratic
society. This is the year of evaluation for this five year program, We
and the interdepartmental committee must recommend its termina-
tion or continuation as it is or in some other form.” The latest word
from inside sources is that it will continue but as part of the Board’s
regionalization program and not as a separate entity.

“As you probably know,” continued Newman to the MP’s, “‘the
demand for films from schools and community organizations across
Canada is far greater than the supply.” He went on to give detailed
figures of the Board’s distribution operations, both here and abroad
(see Antonio Vielfaure’s detailed account of this elsewhere). To the
question “who does see your films?” Mr. Newman replied later: ““A
little over 200 million people see our films in Canada each year.
Now we only have 22 million Canadians ... so what that really
means is that there are over 200 million exposures. You would
imagine, that every Canadian, if you did a simple division, would see
it 10 times. It does not work out that way. What probably happens
is that 4 or 5 million Canadians see a great number of our films and
the rest might see some of them on television or in the cinemas. It
does not necessarily mean that they know who made the films.”

Putting the finishing touches on the “big and unique” series of
“Language Learning Support Dramas” to help Canadians learn the
second official language (slated for distribution this autumn with
suitable teacher-support materials), the compiling of a package of
films on drug problems, entitled “To Take or Not to Take,” the
burgeoning multicultural program which has seen four films produc-
ed and 900 prints of 356 different films in 19 languages distributed
by the Film Board, and the Corporation series of six fascinating
half-hours and another hour-and-a-half recap were cited by Newman
as highlights of recent NFB output.

The planning of French and English women’s production units,
the role of French production personnel in a CIDA sponsored
training program in Tunisia, an agreement with External Affairs for
“the production of a large number of informative films to be added
to the diplomatic libraries abroad, and the Board’s heavy involve-
ment in the 1976 Montreal Olympic Games were cited as further
successful projects underway, although “American indecision forced

us to jettison” some spectacular plans for the American Bicentennial
during the same year. “Habitat 2000, the United Nations Inter-
national Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver, will
involve the Board in a wide spectrum of activities ranging from film
productions to various support services.”

“Last year we participated in 62 festivals and took 54 major

awards. ... Many, many people admire Canada for its leadership in
film. ... Last year we had 1,106 official visitors from Canada and
abroad ... educators, government officials, filmmakers, the list is

endless. ““Among them was Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of
India, as well as the President of the U.S.S.R. Association of
Filmmakers. “In the fiscal year 1973-74, Canada’s Film Board films
were seen by an estimated 766 million people around the world at a
cost of 78 cents for each Canadian.

“Regrettably,” concluded Newman, “our rate of growth is too
slow, too slow by far. It is almost a cliché to say that Canada’s
survival as a characterful, sovereign country is dependent upon
communications. The Film Board and every filmmaker in Canada
has a big job ahead. If there are any doubts about this, in our
Canadian schools from Labrador to Victoria film is one of the most
dramatic and widely used aids to teachers. Of all the films children
see, we estimate — and we are spending a lot to verify this — that
the majority of them are not made by Canadians. (As high as 80 per
cent in some reports — ed.) I do not think it worries us that good
films on physics or mathematics come from abroad, but what of
films on social sciences, on history? For the price of two Hollywood
musicals we can radically reverse this situation so that in ten year’s
time the films our children see in these vital subject areas will be
predominantly Canadian. It will cost a lot but what price sover-
eignty?”

The same Sydney Newman is very concerned with his public image
and — during a fascinating three-hour interview in May — turned the
tables around to ask what people think of him in Toronto. Powerful,
brash, autocratic, stubborn, yet talented and candid are some adjectives
that come to mind about a man who refuses to learn French even
though the organisation he heads has been given the mandate to
interpret a bi-lingual country to its dual language inhabitants. His
refusal to allow release of Gilles Groulx’ documentary on Québec
labour unrest two years ago caused a scandal of major proportions and
gained him the ill will of the more radical segments of French

Cinema Canada 43

Production within the Board as well as that of the leading figures of
Québec’ private film industry.

Even though that storm has died down (a more recent example of
official shelving is Rapport de Force, a Société Nouvelle project on, of
all things, unions in Québec) and things are temporarily calm again,
many stories leak out of closed meetings where the Francophone
dilemma is: “If I give my report in French, everybody else but Sydney
will understand, if in English, I'll have compromised my principles.”
Interestingly enough, this very same problem (corporate bi-lingualism)
is explored at length in one of the episodes of the Corporation series.

On this topic, Newman defends himself by saying that the Board is
seriously attempting to be internally bi-lingual, all his department heads
speak both French and English, and that “the only real culprit in this
whole matter is myself”.

As the reporter approaches the interview, an urgent call is being
placed to Michael Spencer of the CFDC, for which he is asked to leave
the Commissioner’s office. Suspicions at least supported that there are
less than a dozen powerful men in this country who are constantly
communicating and deciding how things should be run with Canada’s
filmmaking activities. Michael Spencer and George Destounis have
cocktails in Cannes and a voluntary quota is born, Sydney Newman and
John Hirsh attend a long policy meeting and some delineation is arrived
at between the two government agencies (CBC/NFB) that are exhibiting
new signs of vigour where this country’s major filmmaking is concern-
ed.

As an ex officio member of the Secretary of State’s advisory
committee on film policy matters, he is certainly very influential in
helping to formulate our future, although he’d never admit it. He claims
that he’s no closer to the seats of power than you or I, but this
journalist finds that very hard to believe. He claims that he’s out for the
Film Board and nothing but the Film Board and doesn’t really think
that this country ever had a feature industry. It was just a gleam in the
eyes of some ‘naive innocents’ who haven’t yet woken up to the facts
of a cold, cruel, capitalist system.

These and many other candid observations were made after the
recording was over, so Newman declined to be quoted on any of it.
Between the two of us and a twice-filled glass of Vodka and orange
juice from his private bar, the cathartic moment came when he sank
back into his chair to respond in the affirmative to my question,
“Should independent feature filmmakers not wishing to entertain a
career at either the CBC of the Board shoot themselves in the head for
lack of opportunities to produce films?” A heavy “‘yes!” — from a man
who should know. And if he’s as ignorant of what’s to come as we are,
God help us all.

Yet, I actually liked the guy — he’s a hard person not to like.
Certainly a controversial figure in Canada’s film landscape, the extent
to which he dominates or influences that scene is open to question. But
even his detractors have to admit he is an energetic man characterised
by great bursts of contagious enthusiasm mixed with long stretches of
unassuming friendliness and candor. He boasts of his recent good
relations with the press. (They used to call him the “primitive colonial”
in England at the start of his BBC career; these same writers later sang
his praises.) Yet, the NFB union’s tabloid — Corridor — gives another
viewpoint. Its 1973 calendar had the ever-present NFB logo with a
circular drawing in the middle. The portrait depicted a famous name-
sake, Alfred E. of Mad—magazine fame, but wait a minute — where did
he get grey sideburns and a cigar? Sydney in disguise?

The following is an interview with Government Film Commissioner,
Sydney Newman ——

Two years ago, during the Gilles Groulx affair, you made
several public statements to the press coast to coast. Many of
them contained the philosophy that if ‘“‘we rock the boat too
much, Parliament will not look kindly upon it. Why endanger
85 per cent of my filmmakers who are not, for the sake of the
15 per cent who are highly politicized.”’ Do you still hold that
view?

Absolutely. I don’t know about the exact figures, I think I said
95 per cent, but the main point is that the Film Board
represents a kind of mosaic of the widest shade of political
views in Canada. Some of our films have touched upon
socialism as a viable and natural progression of our present
Canadian system. I personally think that it is absolutely
permissible and proper for the Film Board to make some films
related to a socialist theory, at least in proportion to the
parliamentary representation. I think that our films — in one
or two cases — have been allowed to be as radical as the
filmmakers on my staff wanted them to be. But they have to

44 Cinema Canada

stop short of a certain permissible limit, which is commensur-
ate with what Parliament intended when they allowed the
Film Board to be created.

When you and André Lamy took over the leadership of the
Board four years ago you initiated changes within both French
and English Production (the turnover of heads of departments
before Mr. Leduc and Mr. Verrall took over, was extensive)
and your methods have caused some of your critics to refer to
you as powerful, brash, autocratic, ruthless. ...

Well, that’s nonsense. It may not be nonsense in that I am a
person of strong language and strong views which I express
with some vigor and definiteness, but I don’t think there is a
single member of my staff who was ever dominated by me,
who has not talked back to me and with whom I have not
traded blows. Intellectually, not physically. And I have had
marvellous rows and I defy any member of the staff to call me
a bully or an ‘autocratic person.’ I have instincts which make
me able to come forward with a precise view, but I also
challenge anybody to prove that my mind cannot be changed.
And my mind is changed in the daily pariah thrust, in the daily
interrelations between me and my staff or group elements of
our staff like our unions. I change my mind only after
persuasion and argument, and if I’ve won my respect from the
staff, it’s because I’ve been absolutely consistent. I’ve got a
precise point of view.

I’ve grown up in this whole metier, I know film, I know
television. I’ve got a showbiz flair. If people want to shoot me
down, and they have, I react graciously, with no rancor, no
anger.

What is your precise point of view vis a vis the Film Board’s
role in the Canadian film community?

I think our role is to stay ahead and be the carrot that leads all
on to bigger and better things. I think the country needs a
Film Board for technical standards, for innovation work, for
our concern for the totality of film in Canada. I think the
country needs us for the kind of people we produce, whether
it’s a Claude Jutra, whether it’s a Quinn in Toronto, who’s got
that beautiful lab, our job is to keep producing these marvel-
lous people. We don’t want them to leave the Film Board but
they automatically will, and we accept this fact. We believe
that this country needs a Film Board to invent a Challenge for
Change. It was also the Film Board who invented cinéma
verité, it wasn’t the French who did that. We need a place to
develop standards for new stocks by Kodak.

We need a place that can represent the conscience of the
people of Canada, without reference to the profit motive.
That’s not to deny the profit motive, but we need somebody
to be independent of the profit motive.

We’re the ones who made 16mm film into a professional
medium! In the forties 16mm was an amateur thing. It’s our
technical work with it and the fact that beautiful filmmakers
worked in 16mm that made that gauge legitimate. And who
the hell developed half-inch magnetic tape animation? It’s the
Film Board! Thanks to our pioneering work, now everybody
can do half-inch video animation. It’s the kind of thing that
has enriched the whole film experience of Canada.

Personally, what is your proudest achievement in the past four
years that you’ve been Film Commissioner?

Nothing you can put your finger on, really. I just think the
Film Board is a healthier place than it was four years ago. I’m
terribly proud that the film Mon Oncle Antoine was regarded
as one of the great hallmarks of Canadian features, and I’m
proud that it was made and finished while I was here. I’m
terribly pleased that Cry of the Wild is a great box-office and
popular success. I guess I’ve given the Film Board a little bigger
emphasis on the marketability aspects of filmmaking. I’ve
emphasized audiences to make filmmakers a little more orient-
ed towards people’s needs. Not as customers paying money,
you understand, that’s not our primary concern. But that films
be valuable to people and what we hope and guess what people

really want: to nurture themselves as being better and coping
with life and its travails.

My relations with Ottawa I think are fairly good. You must
remember, when I became Film Commissioner, the Film Board
was not in entirely high esteem, it was at a low ebb in terms of
public acceptance. I think that’s quite radically changed. I
think I’ve awakened the CBC and made possible the introduc-
tion on the national networks of a lot more Film Board work
than it had seen before. It’s helped filmmakers, their prestige
and their sense of pride. But all these things really are interim,
they’re only one third toward a long term progression.

As Film Commissioner you sit on the Advisory Committee to
the Secretary of State, as well as on the CBC and CFDC
Boards of Directors. Being thus part of an inner circle that
makes policy, would you care to give us an insight into what
goes on at these meetings?

This ad hoc Advisory Committee to the Secretary of State sat
for 15 or so meetings and it was such a polyglot group that it
was very hard to arrive at any sort of consensus. The
distributors were talking about more distribution, the produc-
tion people were talking about more production, and the
government agencies — we were concerned with our own
particular role. All in all it adds up to a lot of very stimulating
talk and we enjoyed each other’s company and I don’t know
that any consensus arose in any clear cut way about any
particular issue. The big obsession of everybody on the
Committee was obviously distribution.

One thing that came out of these meetings was the offer by
the commercial cinema chains to give major exposure in three
key cities to all Canadian feature films to test them out for
possible national distribution. I think that was a direct result
of that Advisory Committee, and it was very positive. Of
course a lot of people think it was only scratching the surface.

The slump in the present feature film production in the rivate
sector is a very acute situation. There’s an uproar in
of filmmakers, the CCFM. ..

You make the word ‘“‘slump”’
Jerusalem five years ago....

sound as

Well, there was a big production bog

And how did the boom come abe
money came from people who didn’

pictures were good or bad. Yes, the t2
that this so-called slump now has n
Jerusalem of three or four years a
farce situation

ying underscores the s
film developments,

distributor d
Spencer for
exhibited in
audience and

In terms of Canada’s national priorities vis a vis this country’s
feature production, what major developments do you see in
the next five years?

You'll see no difference in the Film Board. We don’t intend to
make more than two or three features a year. We haven’t got
the money for it. Our priorities are absolutely elsewhere. We’re
more interested in education, documentary and information
films. Features are simply something that certain members of
our creative staff can aspire to and we’ve got to give them the
opportunity or we'd lose a lot of our good people. That’s our
main interest. We recognize that there are certain aspects of
Canadian life that could perhaps be better expressed or
emotionally gotten across in fictional form than in document-
ary.

About the Canadian film industry in toto, unless they can
develop new markets via television, I believe that they’re going
to work uphill all the time, vis 4 vis the commercial movie
houses, who are stuck into a pattern of exhibition and
distribution that is seventy, eighty years old. And it’s very
hard for the commercial exhibitor to cater to minority
audiences on a mass enough scale to pay for the whole
distribution of those films. Cinema exhibition is no longer the
mass medium it used to be prior to television. Unless the film
industry can organize itself financially and viably on the basis
of more selected, smaller audiences, filmmakers will have to
come around to the realization that they’re going to have to
find their audiences through another method. That means a
film might make money, but it’s going to take five years to
make money, rather than one year. Consequently, television is
a much readier source for the fictional creations of drama
directors who choose the feature film as their form of
expression.

In the film on Grierson, he scathingly denounces television at
one point as a negative force in society which only pacifies and
never rouses, it lulls you to sleep rather than spurring ideas and
qeTION. =.

atever Grierson said is right. And certainly the generality of
sion is that it is a bloody wasteland. And it is an object of
ort and ease, a titty for the babies to suck at. It makes
tl up and forget about life and its rigours. Incidentally,
seful quality; when you’ve had a hell of a day, it’s not
ave your fifty minutes or your hour of escape.
at quotation of Grierson isn’t necessarily all that
thought about television. I spent seventeen years in
7 twelve of which were in England at the BBC, and I
television is a tremendous power for exhibition of
people. It’s what you do with it, what
e-air! I have seen television which is
reated magnificent television. Stuff that
outh, no sir! I’ve been accused in the
nS” of being ‘‘a great purveyor of dirt,
gis why they said that?
8, it. was not the titty in the

ve as is sick
m in traditional

. Cinema Canada 45

cinema halls. In my estimation, that is an old fashioned view.

Aside from the box-office bonanza at box-offices throughout
North America since Christmas, which has resulted in sky-
rocketing profits for exhibitors and distributors and a total
yearly gross way in excess of $150 million in Canada alone,
there’s nothing to replace the thrill of seeing a movie —
especially if it’s Canadian — on a wide screen, in colour....

Along-side 500 or so other people. I agree with you. Unfortun-
ately, our world is moving in such a direction, where you have
to discuss its financial viability and clearly it’s very hard for
new, bright, young, fresh, Canadian filmic voices to get seen
through those old channels. Clearly, there’s no use bitching
about Famous or Odeon, or what. Those guys are running a
business operation, like the steel companies and gas stations.
They’re running businesses. There’s no use berating them for
being no different than any other business. It’s not incumbent
upon them to lose money by running material for which they
cannot draw audiences. At the same time those creative people
that are making films have got to find an audience. And it’s
about time the CFDC recognized that those audiences can be
secured through electronic means. God bless the CFDC! The
important thing is the creative voice and that there are ears
listening to the creative voice.

Let me be skeptical and say that this is another way of skirting
the issue and refusing to come face to face with the problem,
the very acute problem of foreign ownership of Canada’s
motion picture theatres by the Rank Organization of Great
Britain and Paramount/Gulf and Western from the States,
which own the Odeon and Famous Players chains here,
respectively. And they only claim that Canadian features
aren’t good enough and they'll lose money on them, since
they’re committed to have as the bulk of their diet foreign
pictures. They’re foreign owned and consequently are subject
to numerous under the table tie-in arrangements. ...

Foreign owned has nothing to do with it. You’re indulging in a
red herring! Do you think it’s the foreign money that’s
prohibiting Canadian films from being seen? Do you mean to
tell me that they wouldn’t be delighted to run a film, which
will make them as much money as an American film?

“Paperback Hero,” one of our more recent popular films, was
launched with a promotion budget of $10,000 as compared to
as high as 25 times that figure for a big American picture that
comes to Canada and rakes in the money here. Then, when
Paperback surprises everyone and grosses nearly $700,000 at
one point, Famous Players decide to keep a full 90 per cent
against their exhibitor’s and investor’s percentage, leaving very
little for the distributor, producer and almost nothing for the
director, Peter Pearson. Yet when the Godfather grosses over
$1 million at a Famous theatre in Toronto, a full 70 per cent
of the take goes to the distributor, Paramount. And most of
their professed and hidden profits are going to their mother
corporations, as well.

That’s not the point you’re making, though. Of course it is.
But I don’t think that’s what’s prohibiting better films from
being made in Canada. It’s a loss of money, but all that money
is not going to make better films. Do you mean to tell me that
Canadian films would be better if they were an infusion of
another $100 million? All you’re really saying is that they
would make maybe ten times more films, and by the law of
percentages there’ll be more that will be better.

I’m not the most eloquent speaker in favour of this cause. I
mean, God knows, there have been briefs aplenty written and
submitted to various levels of government on this topic. But
what I am saying is that if only some of that $150 million per
annum, maybe 15 per cent, would go into the pockets of

46 Cinema Canada

Canadian producers, that would mean a great upsurge of
feature production ($22.5 million worth every year), and a
thriving film industry with full employment for close to 8,000
people. Meaning that some of us won’t have to seek jobs
elsewhere in the economy....

I don’t think it will be any more thriving. Even Hollywood
only succeeds one out of every ten films they make. If now we
make one excellent film a year out of twenty, if we make
twice as much, then we make two good films a _ year. Well,
that would be very good, I’d be very happy, but I don’t know
if that really is the proper basis for an industry. What is more
fundamental than American ownership, than the cinemas
being foreign owned and all that jazz — and I’m not depreciat-
ing that, that’s a good argument, we need more money — is
what we seem to lack in our country: an understanding — we
want to run before we can walk.

We will not get a viable film industry in our country until
we get a viable theatre, which uses a lot of actors and writers.
We will not get a film industry, until we get a viable electronic
drama experience on television. The actors from the theatre,
the writers from the theatre will intermingle with the actors
and writers for television. It will be the spinoff from the
amalgam that will produce the feature film industry. We are
trying to create a film industry without a viable theatre, a
viable electronic TV drama. We’re trying to run before we can
walk. It won’t work! That’s the source of our naive innocence
in this country.”

Sounds like John Hirsch of CBC Drama was very successful in
getting his ideas accepted by the inner circle of policy people.
When asked whether it was enough that directors like Don
Shebib, Allan King, Don Owen and Peter Pearson do one or
two shows for CBC per year, Newman voiced the belief that
one had to go beyond those few. He discussed his interpreta-
tion of a financially viable industry and expressed the opinion
that most Canadian directors just don’t have the mass appeal
necessary for it. Why do people invest in films? “They want to
get their money back’’, said Newman. “Or is it all to be done
based on a government handout. Nobody wants that. Who the
hell wants to depend on a handout?” When it was pointed out
that some of our leading filmmakers signed the Winnipeg
manifesto earlier this year, asking for exactly that, he didn’t
seem to have read that particular document.

What about the 14,000 members of Britain’s biggest motion
picture union, whose recent brief called for the total national-
isation of the film industry in that country, including a
take-over of the American majors? Yes, he’s read it, some of
his “best friends” are ACTT members, but he characterised it
as a “fart in a hurricane”. Who took it seriously? Nobody in
England,” according to Newman. Maybe in ten years? ‘““Maybe,
maybe. But the nationalisation of the film industry by itself
will not guarantee better films.”” The Canadian Government
Film Commissioner went on to say that during his travels in
the Soviet Union he wasn’t very impressed with the socialist
product. What about East Europe? He said he was “too
ignorant of what they’ve done. But the fact is when you talk
about feature investment of half to a million, you need more
magic than the sweet, sincere, blue eyes of the film director.”

“The cost of art in our kind of society has to be in relation
to the number of people whose imaginations it will excite,”
theorized Newman, and went on to say that of the best
Canadian film directors, not even Claude Jutra “‘has proven
himself to be able to captivate the imagination of a mass
audience on a continuing basis.” It certainly seems like the
men at the top have given up on our short but noble fling with
feature filmmaking, even before they allowed it to truly get
off the grounde

DICTAPHONE

>

Telephone

Answering
Systems for
every need

Purchase
or lease

T & JB Products Ltd

100 Dixie Plaza
Mississauga Ont.
278~6106

Fall Issue:
PHOTOGRAPHY, FILM
AND ART

from the ‘light box’ of
Leonardo to the cathode ray
of Nam June Paik featuring

the multi-media explorations
of Canadian artists today. ...
Subscribe now to

art

magazine

RATES:
1 year (4 issues) : $7.00
2 years (8 issues): $12.00
payable to:

ART MAGAZINE,
2498 Yonge Street,
Suite 19,

Toronto M4P 2H8.

fen years young

If you know us, help us cut our birthday cake.
lf you don't, and you want immediate attention
to any film need, write, telephone or wire. We're
in downtown Montreal... we're top-flight profes-
sionals... and we're ten years young.

Suite 507
ee 1440 St. Catherine St. West,

roductions Montreal 107, P.Q., Canada
Inc. (514) 878-9638

SHOOTING NEW COLOR
NEG - 5247 or 7247?

By the Author of THE FIVE C’s OF CINEMATOGRAPHY

The WORKBOOK Explains Everything You
Always Wanted To Know About Color
Negative: Exposure, Color Balance, Filters,
Mixed Illumination, Day-For-Nite, Lab
Timing, H & D Curves—and much more!
Incredible Value! ONLY $20! WRITE FOR BROCHURE

Californians add 6% Sales Tax. Foreign Orders add $1 per
book for postage, handling. NO C.0.D.‘s! NO BILLING! ~

CINE/GRAFIC PUBLICATIONS © BOX 430 © HOLLYWOOD, CA 90028

RENTAL - SERVICES |

Camera, Sound and Lighting Equipment
Film Crews

Editing

Neg Cutting

Daily and Weekly Rates

CRYSTAL FILM PRODUCTIONS CO. LTD.
433 Jarvis St. Ste. 102 Toronto (416) 923-3740

THE FILM ARTISTS “EXCHANGE”
A NEW CONCEPT
FAST, RELIABLE, SLICK

Inquire about our special discount rates to freelancing
film artists

Cinema Canada 47

ANDRE LAMY

George Csaba Koller

ASITANE FILM) CMNMISSIONE

Assistant Government Film Commissioner, André Lamy, a
no-nonsense businessman and film producer came to the Film
Board four years ago. André Lamy has an impressive track
record in Québec’s private industry, before joining the Board
in 1970. His brother, Pierre Lamy, is still one of the best
feature producers in Québec, having shepherded all recent
productions by Gilles Carle, Claude Jutra and Denys Arcand.
As Sydney Newman’s right hand man, he is in effect the
general manager of the Board, and as such has to deal with an
infinite number of variables, including budget figures, internal
staff relations, long term planning and Ottawa civil servants.
While being interviewed at his office at NFB headquarters, he
emitted an air of confidence and efficiency.

On a recent visit to Toronto, Sydney Newman characterized
himself as a “juggler.” He’s juggling a tea cup on his knee for
the news camera, he’s juggling the budget of the Film Board,
he’s juggling English, French co-existence, that kind of thing.
Do you see yourself in that role?

No, I’m not a juggler. I’m a very well organized, very
systematic type of man. I try to prepare decisions according to
the information and my own feeling on the question. I don’t
play with the elements too much. I’m not a juggler. ’m not.

I think he meant it in the sense that you’re caught ona certain
level between Ottawa and your own staff, and you have to get
enough money from here to be able to afford to pay enough
money there. As acting manager of the Film Board, your job
would fall somewhere in between that seesaw, or am I wrong
to presume that?

Well, if your understanding of juggling is that, okay. For me
it’s a very well organized process. We have some very specific
relationships with the Treasury Board and I understand the
system more and more. We have a very specific relationship
with the Secretary of State. As for any resources or our
mandate, more and more I understand how they fit into the
system. The Parliamentary Committee is another dimension.
They can and do challenge us and our mandate. It’s a very well
organized platform. This outside the Film Board. Inside the
Film Board, for me it’s quite clear. I’m not mixed up at all
about the role of French Production, English Production,
Distribution, Technical Operations and so on.

When Mr. Newman and yourself assumed your positions to
head the Board nearly four years ago, you had plans to change
a few things. Could you talk about that?

The basic change was regional production. Now we are in the
process of implementing that plan. We are operating a
Vancouver office at the level of three quarters of a million
dollars, the Winnipeg office has been officially announced at
the Board meeting there, Halifax is already in operation and
our B budget asked for money for Toronto, as soon as
possible. This was part of the five year plan. (The B budget is
when you ask the government for new funds for new pro-

grams.)

48 Cinema Canada

We completely reorganized the French Production de-
partment, management-wise, by creating a new structure.
Same thing happened with English Production. The studio
heads are now part of management. Other than that, the
producers and filmmakers are part of the staff. So there is a
clear cut equation between management and production and
directorship.

Another part of the change was to get a better share of the
production to be produced specifically for television. This was
implemented in both French and English Production, in
different ways, because the problems and the solutions were
not the same. For example, there were no problems when we
established closer links between the Film Board’s French
Production and Radio-Canada. They are the same group of
people, they know each other pretty well. But on the English
side, because of the distance (Montreal to Toronto), because
of the milieu, we were confronted with a problem.

This was the interpretation of the role of the National Film
Board vis 4 vis the English network (CBC). We settled this one
too. We started with the series on Québec, the series on the
West, next year it’s going to be the Coastal Regions. This was
all part of the plan.

Distribution-wise: we say that the future of distribution is
not to increase the staff or the number of offices across
Canada, but that we should find more new ways of getting in
touch with people. We decided as a policy to offer a discount
to anybody in this country who could be a further extension
of the role of the National Film Board, helping us to reach
people. We say that to anybody who could give a public
service — particularly free — in distribution we will give a 50
per cent discount. Thus we create 85 to 90 new ‘office staff
to distribute the films of the National Film Board for prac-
tically nothing! We create a lower discount for education
people, because they don’t give a public service as elaborate as
a library for example.

We decided to organize a protocol between provincial
governments and the National Film Board, a kind of umbrella.
They would like to get access to our films, and copy our films
on video tape. They will pay a royalty. We said to them
“Okay, if you want to help us distribute our material and
reach the people, and do a good job, we'll even sign an
umbrella contract.” So far, the results were just fantastic.
We’ve tripled the number of films available to the Canadian
public in a period of about six months, and the process
continues. It’s just a matter of time. We may discover 200
‘associate distributors’ for the National Film Board staff. This
was part of the plan.

What major scale plans did you have in terms of features for
TV, aside from the series that you have....

Well, there’s no plan whatsoever with Michael Spencer and the
CFDC, for example. I don’t think that it would be proper for
the National Film Board to get access to this bag of money
because of the CFDC’s role and responsibility. Secondly, I
don’t think it would be feasible because 30 per cent of every

Cold Journey

dollar for the National Film Board is a fixed expense for the
lab, and if I go on a kind of co-production deal with Michael
Spencer, the National Film Board and a private company, I
will force them to use our lab. Then the private labs would try
to kill me. We tried to analyse this kind of set up and it was
just impossible.

With CBC, yes. There’s some kind of discussion going on
that maybe we could prepare a set of four feature films. Two
will be produced by the CBC, two by the National Film Board.
Both co-producers will get access according to their own
mandate. This is part of the relationship that we have with the
CBC and Radio-Canada, for a series of films. This is not
exactly co-production because of the mandate of the CBC, it’s
really a co-financing of production. CBC could refuse to show
a film coming from the National Film Board. The National
Film Board could say to the CBC “‘we will NOT produce such
a film for you.” We are pretty autonomous about the content
of the film and we will not accept any specific guidelines
coming from a distributor, including the CBC. Of course, this
gives the right to the CBC to say “we don’t want this specific
film.”

Sydney Newman two years ago in the Montreal Star was
quoted as saying: “Some people think that André Lamy and
myself are pretty ruthless.’’ He was referring to the way you
undertook the implementation of your plan. Would you care
to comment?

Well, first, I do not agree with him. I’m not a ruthless guy. I
try as much as possible to make the directors and the people
around the directors appreciate the decision-making process.
Of course, I’m responsible for $30 million of public money
and have to make sure that those dollars will be spent
adequately. Sometimes dealing with filmmakers or artists, it’s

Cinema Canada 49

very difficult to speak the same language. Not because I
disagree or they disagree with me. It’s just trying to bridge our
perimeters, sometimes they’re not exactly the same. I’m not a
ruthless man. Honestly, I believe that the majority of people in
French Production and English Production, even when they do
not agree with me — they accept the decision-making process
and the majority of decisions that we prepare so far.

How would you describe the Film Board’s structure? It’s a
hierarchical structure, no doubt, but would you describe the
way it functions as a democracy or are the critics who say that
it’s an autocratic kind of leadership correct?

Oh, well, this is NOT democracy or if it’s democracy, I’m in
charge and responsible. And, you know, I’ve got a boss called
Sydney Newman and he could fire me. And the Minister could
fire Sydney if he feels that Sydney’s not doing a good job.
This is not democracy BUT coming from the private sector I
could tell you that I never saw in the past so much partici-
pation from the base, in the decision-making process.

Example: there are two programming committees — French
and English — they spend a day or two every week to
recommend to me what will be the NFB program, week after
week. I’m in a position to refuse or to accept their recom-
mendations. This is a very powerful tool for me but this is a
very powerful tool for them also. When I have the information
of what they would like to recommend to me, I’m in a
position to refuse or to accept. And in fact we do reject some
of the programs. But not as much as the program committees
themselves. They reject maybe 50 per cent of the material
coming from the base. I’m in a position to reject or accept the
remainder that they recommend to me. It’s a full process of
participation, but I don’t think that I’m in a position accord-
ing to my mandate and responsibility to share the authority,
whatsoever.

That brings up another question, I just saw the film Grierson
this morning and was tremendously moved by it. His vision
certainly included using film as a vital tool for social change in
the process of democratising society. The narrator even says at
one point: “Grierson’s democratic ideal... .”’

André Lamy and David Novek, who was also present at the
interview, nearly fell off their chairs at this point. Their
laughter subsided and Lamy explained: “I’m a kid! I’m a kid,
in comparison with Grierson.” “Grierson was the boss”, added
Novek. “I read the file of Grierson’s séjour at the Film Board.
He liked democracy all right, with a drink in his hand! But he
wanted to be in charge! And the size of the Film Board when
Grierson was there and the social context when Grierson was
in charge in Ottawa of an operation of 150 people was very
different from today. Now we’re dealing with an organisation
of 1,000 people, with Francophones and English. Frankly, I
think that the philosophy of Grierson and the way we should
pursue this philosophy today, is quite limited.”

Yet your films do reflect that philosophy in a larger context.

Oh, I agree. The philosophic approach of the content of some
films is that Grierson was a genius. The spirit of Grierson
dealing with the content of production was a very good one,
and I think we protect such a philosophy inside the Film
Board. It is important in every frame of film that we produce.
But the way Grierson managed the Board at the time and the
way we should manage the Board today is quite different.

“Grierson said that films should be made for a democratic
purpose,” interjected Novek, “But when you produce those
films, somebody’s got to be on top. You have to differentiate
between democracy outside and within the filmmaking
process.”

There’s a dichotomy there....

“Absolutely!” affirmed Lamy. “‘But that was managed per-
fectly day after day by Grierson. Democracy was for anybody
outside the Film Board. The spirit of Grierson was a good one.
We spent a lot of time together, he was very close to me for a

50 Cinema Canada

year. For me it was a process of understanding more ade-
quately the role and the responsibility of the National Film
Board to produce day after day the tools that could change
society. That could ameliorate the quality of life of the
people. It’s still the same, and the structure is stronger than
any man in charge of the Film Board.

The Board just recently produced a group of films called
Corporation, a beautiful series. It actually goes inside another
large organisation and exposes the inner workings of that
supermarket chain. Could Arthur Hammond turn his cameras
around and make sucha film about the Film Boarditself?

Truffaut did that with Day for Night. I will not hesitate to give
a contract for somebody else to do so, if it’s a good idea. But I
don’t think so, since there’s a big difference between analysing
Steinberg’s and the NFB. Do you really think that the public
would be interested in such a film?

Well, I would, but then perhaps I’m not a representative of the
public. But perhaps after 35 years there should be a conclusive
statement on film as to what the Board is about. ...

You should read three theses that have been written about the
Film Board structure. They are damned good. One of them is

from the University of Montréal. There’s somebody from

Harvard who has analysed for the past 12 months the struc-
ture, the production staff, the agreements, everything. Re-
search like that goes on year after year. I’m not sure that the
production of a film on the Film Board will be seen as a good
document. If your sense of the question is that, I must say
that I’m not afraid at all. I think it’s a damned good structure.

Getting back to how much that structure costs: when you
were all in Toronto in April, the papers quoted the Commis-
sioner as saying that his annual budget of $17 million is too
little and that’s why he has to juggle. Yet the Board spends
more than that, doesn’t it?

The global expenditure of the National Film Board for 74/75
will be $30,300,000. We got a vote from Parliament last year
of $16 million and this year of $17 million. Then we earn
revenue. This comes from sponsored films (other government
bodies commissioning the Board to make films for them —
ed.), distribution, contracts, name it. One third of our global
expenditures are from revenue. The difference is made up of
services provided by government, like free rent, heat, elec-
tricity. With the voted money come guide lines. It’s established

Frederique Collin in “Question de vie”’

that we’re going to split the production money one third for
French ($4 million per annum) and two-thirds for English ($8
million per annum) production, based on the population of
Canada. We know how to spread the money between produc-
tion, distribution and technical operations. We would like all
sections to progress at the same rhythm, according to their
need. We could focus one year, for example, more on certain
aspects of distribution, but this always rotates. There is a
delegation of authority at a division chief level, that is quite
autonomous. Tony and David and other people in Distribution
would be told: “Okay, you got $5 million, tell me more.” The
way they’re going to manage their branch and they come up
with a set of priorities. We say: “Okay, we accept this, we
refuse that, because we don’t agree with you on those
specifics, etc.”

Is the Board interested in making money with features?

“No!” responded Lamy vehemently. “I don’t think that the
Film Board is interested in making money. But the minute
that you decide to make a feature film, you have to consider
box office. That’s just a fact of life. I’m not sure we would be
more successful if we decided to rent the theatres ourselves
and show the films for free. What we try to do is to launch
feature films through the box office because that’s the way
that Canadians react to such forms of expression. Of course,
there’s always the question, should we produce feature films at
all? But we cut back pretty quickly on the box office and we
make sure we have copies in 16mm to go on television as fast
as possible, before the project or the film become obsolete.
This is not done by the private sector. We do that system-
atically: that after a year or the minute we feel the box office
does not operate enough, we cut the contract and move to a
parallel network of distribution, be it television or an inde-
pendent feature distributor, to get access to people with other
skills of distribution very quickly.

Novek: “The important thing for the Film Board is
exposure in distribution, to reach the people, not to make
money. Of course we want to earn revenue so that we can
reinvest it.”

Let’s say one of your features is a run-away success, a real
blockbuster. Cry of the Wild is heading in that direction. How
will this affect your very systematic policy of allocating
monies, having to revert monies you can’t spend back to
Treasury, etc.?

It won’t change the policy. The policy is to produce maybe
two feature films in French and two or three in English if
money is available. I think it’s proper for the NFB with a
permanent staff to develop that kind of activity. First, for the
filmmaker. Why? Because the filmmaker who decides to work
here on a permanent basis should not be denied this form of
expression. This is staff-wise: morale. Second, I think that
feature film is more than only a form of expression: it’s a
medium by itself. There are people for whom television is just
a piece of crap. You find them at the Outremont, they would
never go to the Loew’s, for example, to see a big, flat,
American feature film, either. If you want to have access to a
very specific group of people, the fifteen to twenty five
year-olds, to say things that are important — Canadian content
— feature films have proven to be one of the best forms of
expression.

I would like an Easy Rider or a Joe to be produced by the
National Film Board. I feel honestly that Easy Rider, or Joe,
or Serpico could change a society. They were reflections of
American society and created an impact which I don’t think
that a book, television, or a big, expensive feature film could
have done. If you could control properly the ingredients of a
feature film, you could do many things in society, provided
you succeed. Mon Oncle Antoine changed drastically the
Quebec production of films. Before then we had a type of
skin-flic operation — Denis Héroux. Then we demonstrated
that with a film Like Mon Oncle Antoine box-office could

work! As good as Deux Femmes En Or, and I’m afraid I was
the producer of Deux Femmes En Or.”

As long as you’re putting the Film Board in the context of
Québec society, I would like to ask a question relating to that:
how does the political future of Québec determine the Board
being in Montreal?

If our role is to interpret Canada to Canadians, of course in
some of our films it will show what’s going on in Québec. For
example, Action/Reaction by Robin Spry, based on the
October events. The stock shot was done by three crews, two
from the French section, one from the English. This is a
reflection on Québec, and I think it is a part of our role. To be
more specific, in the French production,” said Lamy slowing
down, “‘it’s a matter of concern for me to make sure that the
filmmakers will not go too far or will not try to be partisan or
party line or make films that could easily be interpreted as a
propaganda tool for a party or for things which are very well
linked in the public mind to a party. That’s my concern,
dealing with some of the films produced by French Pro-
duction. As for the rest of what’s going on in Québec, I don’t
think anybody will stop that. It would be going against the
role of the Film Board if it wouldn’t show up in some of our
films.

You touched on the question of censorship. Two years ago
there was a big flare-up with the Gilles Groulx affair. Is that
still a great concern?

Of course, but I don’t call it censorship. Never. I think that it
is part of my responsibility and Sydney’s responsibility to
manage such a problem. Gilles Groulx’ concern was a film with
a title, for us it was to manage a situation. Yves Leduc was
there to manage the thing, Gilles Groulx didn’t want to be
managed. Or didn’t accept the guide lines prepared by Yves
Leduc to finish the film. It was a matter of budget and it was a
matter of content.

There was a more recent film with similar content, both being
about union unrest in Québec. I think it was a film called
Syndicat, produced by Société Nouvelle?

Rapport de Force was the title of a project that I refused to
accept. First, I didn’t feel it was clearly the responsibility of
Société Nouvelle to produce such a film. Secondly, the film
was too ephemeral as a content, because it was linked pretty
much to two important strikes in Québec. And I didn’t refuse
the film, I refused the script. Then asked, in collaboration with
the Société Nouvelle committee, to prepare a better script, to
prepare a sort of guideline, but the filmmaker decided to drop
the project.

So the project has been dropped?

By the filmmaker! Because he didn’t want to accept my
guidelines and he didn’t want to come back with another film,
on the same subject. I would agree with Challenge for
Change/Société Nouvelle that there is a film to be done about
union activity in Québec.

Wasn’t there supposed to be an episode of the Adieu Alouette
series that was supposed to deal with that problem, as well?

Yes, oh, this one. ... It was a very bad film, very dull, and I
didn’t have any problems cancelling it. I think the filmmaker
was pretty happy to get rid of it. It was just a bad film.

Do you expect any more projects like this to pop up during
the next few years, or have things calmed down somewhat?

Well, because I’m not a ruthless man, there is a better
understanding of my responsibility, the responsibility of the
Director of French Production, Yves Leduc and that of the
programming committee, than previouslye

Cinema Canada 51

Anne-Claire Poirier (right) with her mother

ae aa

In 1970 an exciting possibility began evolving in the minds of

certain employees of L’Office National du Film in Montreal.
The employees were women; the basic idea was the creation of
a special program devoted to filling a pressing need for films
conceived and executed by, for, about, and with the co-oper-
ation of women. The previous year had already seen the
establishment of Société Nouvelle, the French-language coun-
terpart of the English-language program Challenge for Change
which had gotten underway in the mid 1960's with Tanya
Ballantyne’s The Things I Cannot Change (1966) and Colin
Low’s landmark series of films on Fogo Island produced in
co-operation with Newfoundland’s Memorial University Exten-
sion Service.

Officially described as “an experimental program estab-
lished by the Government of Canada as a participation be-
tween the National Film Board of Canada and certain federal
government agencies”, Challenge for Change/Société Nouvelle
is a program “designed to improve communications, create
greater understanding, promote new ideas and provoke social
change” (from Access, the English-language Challenge for
Change/Société Nouvelle newsletter). Thus described, Société
Nouvelle seemed to provide a most appropriate framework
within which the women could work together to reach the
women of Québec and help foster a sense of identity, an
understanding of themselves as individuals and as active mem-
bers of the society around them.

March 1971 saw the first concrete manifestation of this
special women’s program when the initial plan was presented
to the Board. Approval was attained, due at least in part to the
timeliness of the submission: the rights of women as distinct
individuals was not only becoming a cause célébre but the
government-appointed Commission on the Status of Women in
Canada had legitimized the cause with a public presentation of
its recommendations. By September, the already forming

52 Cinema Canada

ANNE-CLAIRE POIRIER

Laurinda Hartt

group of Film Board women had completed extensive research
(which had combined the analysis of statistics and available
literature on women with a series of intensive personal discus-
sions with groups of women representatives of a wide variety
of ages, occupations and social surroundings) and submitted a
lengthy and detailed report. It was this research that revealed
the original plan of producing a one-hour in-depth film about
women to be impossible and impractical — so much that
needed to be expressed would go unexpressed and unexplored
in anything less than a series of films.

The end result was the program En tant que femmes,
consisting of the production of a series of six films, which had
commenced by 1972 under the guidance of NFB producer-
director Anne-Claire Poirier. Ms. Poirier had been a prime
mover behind the project since its inception and had under-
taken the ground-breaking basic research, along with Jeanne
Boucher Morazain who was to direct one of the films in the
subsequent series. (See box for a list of films and their
makers. )

Although officially designated the program’s producer, the
imposing Ms. Poirier stresses the strong sense of teamwork
manifested by all the women participating in the production
of the series, and feels it is misleading that her contribution be
singled out as being any more important than that of any
other member. Nevertheless, it has been said that the women’s
program would never have materialized had it not been for her
work in initiating the project and then in keeping it alive and
productive during its past two and a half years of existence.
Four films have been completed and aired on Radio-Canada.
The fifth film has just been finished and a sixth is in
preparation.

Three basic objectives have motivated the work within the
En tant que femmes program: 1) to end the psychological
isolation of women by helping them to identify themselves

Mireille Dansereau

first as women, then as members of a group sharing similar
characteristics, and to look upon other women as potential
friends and allies rather than as competitors; 2) to encourage a
process of self-awareness and acceptance of one’s individuality
through a critical reappraisal and redefinition of self in terms
of personal interests rather than solely in relation to a man or
family; 3) to develop a social awareness within women so that
once they have rediscovered themselves as individuals, they
will assume their crucial role in redefining and reshaping a
society that has made the lives of both men and women
difficulty by defining their existence primarily in terms of
biological differences.

Just how effective En tant que femmes will prove to be in
achieving such objectives now remains to be seen as the public
is given access to the films. So far the results having been most
heartening: the first four films have been aired on Radio-
Canada to a response characterized by the Board’s newsletter
Pot Pourri as “overwhelmingly positive.”

Anne-Claire Poirier joined the National Film Board in 1960
after having studied law (at the University of Montréal) and
theatre (at the Conservatoire d’art dramatique de la province le
Québec) and after a brief career as a writer and interviewer for
Radio-Canada. She worked as a film editor, most notably on
Clément Perron’s Jour Aprés Jour (Day After Day), a ‘near-
abstract documentary film, striking and powerful in its use of
editing and asynchronous sound (including a rhythmic narra-
tion read by Ms. Poirier) to evoke the reality of life as a

factory worker and to provoke a powerful emotional response
in the viewer. Then in 1961 Anne-Claire became one of the
Board’s few women directors. It was a question of being in the
right place at the right time: producer Jacques Bobet who had
already made two films on women had revealed what Anne-
Claire terms “‘a very feminist approach” was not only not
against having women working in film production but “‘very
open to it and almost looking for one, so I guess that I
happened to be the one that arrived at the right time.”
(laughs)

With Bobet producing, she directed four films: Nomades de
Pouest (Stampede) with co-director Claude Fournier in 1961;
30 Minutes, Mr. Plummer (1962); La Fin des étés (1964); and
Les Ludions (1965). Guy L. Coté produced her next film, her
first feature-length film, De mére en fille (1968). As producer-
director she .was responsible for two series of short films,
Impot et tout ... et tout (1968) and Le savoir-faire s’impose,
(1971) for the Department of National Revenue. It was from
her experiences as one of the only active women producer-
directors on the Film Board staff that the impetus for the En
tant que femmes program first emerged. “‘I realized myself the
problems I had making films here. .. . It took awhile because
at first I was constantly blaming myself for the projects I was
proposing, feeling that J was the one that was wrong. But
evidently the projects I was bringing in were not being
perceived in a way that women would have perceived them.
Because I am a woman, I see things in a certain way. So for

quite a few years I took it for a fault of mine that I was
dealing with things that didn’t seem interesting to those to
whom I was proposing a subject with a view that was different
from the other films being proposed and made.

“I was constantly being told I was emotional or irrational. I
tried not to be and had a lot of trouble not to be so (laughs),
until the day when together we decided, OK, we are emo-
tional. ... That’s the way we perceive things and deal with
things. Why should we continue to be ashamed of it? Maybe
it’s not a fault. So we said, ‘Let’s try to work our way.’ And I
think that’s what turned out to be the greatest aspect of the
adventure: we worked in a world we knew, realizing very fast
that being with women and saying the things we were feeling,
we were very close to each other without knowing it — very
profoundly similar.

“I remember that we had discussions that disturbed a lot of
people when we said that very often we felt closer to a woman
Anglophone than a man Francophone. This was regarded as a
kind of trahison in relation to another aspect of our reality
which was to the people of Québec. But I’m sure that none of
us did betray anything or betray ourselves or our reality as
Québécoises. It may sound exaggerated, but it’s not.”

Gaining official approval for the project from the Board’s
predominantly male management was not easy but “not too
difficult” either “‘because we arrived at the right time with the
right kind of proposal, putting them in a position where they
couldn’t say no” without seeming unduly unreasonable. Per-

son-to-person contact with Québec women during basic re-
search was an attempt “‘to go a little deeper into the reality of
the lives the women were leading” states Ms. Poirier, some-
thing she felt was necessary in order to gain a clear, realistic
understanding of the nature of their existence, an under-
standing not attained by pouring over factual statistics and
written materials alone.

As the research progressed, the aims of the projected
program came into clearer focus: to explain something about
life as a woman and to request things (legal changes, etc.) for
women would be to say things that almost everyone knew
already. “They are things that are important to be said, but I
felt more and more that what needed to be done was for
women to do things their way and speak about themselves
their way. So we came back to the Film Board with a report

. and asked that a series of films be made by women,
researched by women, and including as many women as
possible on the production crew as well as training some to
eventually become technically capable on a professional level.
At the beginning they (Board officials) thought it would be
something like a “first movie” — cheap budget and with girls
who would try to make films. That’s why as producer I tried —
and succeeded, I think — to keep the professional standard up
to what is usually done at the Board, and avoid having such a
qualification put on the series. That’s why once the idea was
accepted, I went to Aimée Danis and Mireille Dansereau, two
women I knew in private industry in Montréal who were

Cinema Canada 53

wodf auaag

«50d AUDU AU, [ ‘ALADUL PUL, f,,

o f

Micheline Lanctét and Luce Guilbault
experienced filmmakers.”

Everyone expected frequent clashes of temperament
amongst the women of the En tant que femme production
group, but in fact they worked very closely and harmoniously
together; united by a common belief in what they were doing;
the women laughed, had fun and truly worked together as a
co-operative unit to help one another make the best films
possible. Their way of working and their love and respect for
one another influenced the people around them; they were
told that they had given a new sense to documentaries because
of their faith in what they were doing. Nicole Chamson,
administrator on the five completed films, told Anne-Claire
that these were the best organized, the least sloppy and the
most punctual productions with which she has been involved
at the Board. Anne-Claire attributes this degree of organization
to a basic desire to prove themselves fully capable of pro-
ducing quality work without being told they were wasting
time and money. She says that the Société Nouvelle, as a
whole, used to work with the same high degree of commit-
ment but feels it is palling now perhaps because the program
has grown too large to sustain the same cohesiveness. Never-
theless, she adds, ‘‘In the last few years the Challenge for
Change/Société Nouvelle has given a new swing to the docu-
mentaries we’re making, even if Challenge for Change is very
different from Société Nouvelle.” She feels that the films
made by each sector of the program are very different and has
heard it said that the films of Société Nouvelle “films like our
films”, are “too much like films and less tools of social
intervention. I disagree — I don’t believe that because a film is
good it is less effective as a means of social intervention.” For
her, the more professionally executed a film, the more effec-
tive it is as an instrument of influence and change.

The women of En tant que femmes hope to continue their
work beyond the completion of the final film of the present
series. The danger now is the “‘you’ve had your candy”’
syndrome which would signal a return to things as they were
at the Board before the formation of the women’s group, and
this “would not be normal” says Anne-Claire. Until the
women’s program, the Board didn’t let women enter film ona
highly professional technical level. “But through fact and
reality, we proved that women were capable of doing profes-
sional work in technical capacities... . Now they know this in
the camera department because it’s been done; now they know
it in the sound department because we brought the second
woman into that department. The barriers that were there
were only in people’s heads.”

Because the general NFB budget is “already too tight for
those already here” and because the women “don’t expect
change in the institution proper’, they have applied for a “B
budget” (one set aside for special projects) of $500,000 a year
for a five-year project combining French and English-language
sectors in the formation of a special women’s unit. Although
the decision has not been announced, the women seem
guardedly optimistic in light of the success of the En tant que

54 Cinema Canada

femmes program and the advent of International Women’s
Year in 1975 (and the need for women’s films to represent
Canada during that year).

“We insisted on the B budget because we didn’t want to
take the money away from our brothers. The difference that
has to be filled is so great that it can’t be done unless a special
project is set up. Otherwise it would take years before women
would be capable of getting into the profession and not be
alone to be treated as ‘special cases’, a situation very wrong for
any human being — it’s not better if they insist she’s a woman
more than a filmmaker. While working with each other
amongst ourselves, we were much more at ease, feeling that we
could say what we wanted to say with much less pressure on
proving our capacities, qualities and talents.”

A man at the Board once told Anne-Claire that if they
received the requested B budget, it would be extraordinary —
‘You'll have $500,000 to speak about yourselves. How lucky
you are,’ he said. Anne-Claire Poirier replied: “But you have
two million a year to do the same thing. Why haven’t you
started yet? It’s a choice they (the men) have made, to talk
about others in their films. But”, adds Anne-Claire, “‘there’s
nothing that stops them from changing it.”e

The films:

A qui appartient ce cage? — a film that goes beyond an analysis of
children’s day care centres to reflect on the child and the nature of
the adults’ commitment to that child. (16mm colour, 56 mins. 40
secs.)

A film by Jeanne Morazain, Susan Gibbard, Marthe Blackburn,
Francine Saia, Clorinda Warny. Photography by Jacques Fogel and
Thomas Vamos, with assistants Michel Caron and Susan Gabori.
Edited by Marthe de la Chevrotiére. Produced by Anne-Claire
Poirier.

Les Filles du roy — in the form of a love letter, this film represents a
quest for the identity of the Québec woman. (16mm colour, 56
mins. 40 secs.)

A film by Anne-Claire Poirier. Scenario by Marthe Blackburn with
Jeanne Morazain and Anne-Claire Poirier. Photography by Georges
Dufaux, assisted by Susan Gabori. Animation by Jean Bédard.
Editing assistance by Suzanne Allard. Produced by Anne-Claire
Poirier.

J’me marie, j’me marie pas — a film about four women who make
four different, conscious choices about their lives. (16mm colour,
81 mins. 18 secs.)

A film by Mireille Dansereau. Assistant direction by Héléne Girard.
Photography by Benoit Rivard, assisted by Robert Karstens. Anima-
tion by Jean Bédard-Vartkes Cholskian. Edited by Claire Boyer.
Produced by Anne-Claire Poirier. The women: Francine Larrivée,
artist; Linda Gaboriau, journalist; Jocelyne Lepage, translator;
Tanya Mackay, filmmaker.

Souris, tu m’inquiétes — a film that combines drama and nonfiction
to express the daily life of a woman of Québec. (16mm colour, 56
mins. 40 secs.)

A film by Aimée Danis. Assistant direction by Francine Gagné.
Scenario by Aimée Danis. Photography by Daniel Fournier, assisted
by Jacques Tougas. Edited by Claire Boyer. Produced by Anne-
Claire Poirier and Jean-Marc Garand. With a cast including Micheline
Lanct6t, Luc Durand, Olivette Thibault, Luce Guilbeaut, Yves
Létourneau.

The fifth film, Les jeunes filles (tentatively titled) will present a
multiple portrait of today’s young woman by going beyond the
image projected by the world of fashion, advertising and beauty
contests. The sixth and final film of the series is presently
underway.

The women involved in En tant que femmes production:

Jeanne Boucher Morazain, Susan Gibbard, Francoise Berd,
Madeleine Savoie, Michéle Saumier, Thérése Lindsay, Aimée Danis,
Mireille Dansereau, Janine Careau, Héléne Girard, Francine Saia,
Anne-Claire Poirier, Susan Gabori, Nicole Chamson, Jeanne
Lapointe, Maria Nicoloff, Marthe Blackburn, Clorinda Warny, Claire
Boyer, Mona Josée Gagnon, Francine Desbiens, Suzanne Gervais,
Vivianne Elnécavé, Francine Gagné, Marthe de la Chevrotiére,
Andrée Thibault, Adéle Lauzon, Monique Larocque.

Pee RT TONG A
SMe a9 Ge ye
ee bey To Se Ly

Pee vee ae ta]
oc 5

Laurinda Hartt

Series

As the En tant que femmes program indicates, women are
playing an increasingly active role in filmmaking at the Film
Board, increased activity that extends beyond this one Société
Nouvelle-based program.

Within the English-language Challenge for Change, Kathleen
Shannon is presently involved in completing the last four in
her group of 12 films collectively called, Working Mothers.
Eight of the films have been completed, all are in colour and
range in length from seven to fifteen minutes. Each film deals
with a working mother in a different life situation: from
university professor in Tiger on a Tight Leash, and nurse in
Luckily I Need Little Sleep, to a mother on welfare in Would I
Ever Like to Work; from the mother of a nuclear family in
They Appreciate You More, to members of a commune in
Extensions of the Family. (See list for all the titles.)

Kathleen Shannon explains, ‘““While I was doing my research
it had struck me that working mothers had a lot in common,
so my intention was to show the similarities by interviewing
people of obviously different age, different economic situa-
tion, different background, where it becomes clear that the
problems at the core are really the same.”

Originally making one hour-long film, Kathleen Shannon
soon discovered that, as she took the film apart, the impact
increased until she realized that the material was most effec-
tive in short segments. “That way I wasn’t building in how
people should interpret the material by how things were
juxtaposed. My films are a kind of channel, a means of getting
reality across, rather than building a new reality out of raw
materials the way very cinematic films are made. We hope that
people can integrate their own experience into their interpre-
tation of the films to see where their own lives are represented
in each film. We’re hoping that people can move beyond seeing
a particular film and wanting to know ‘‘what’s happening to
her now”, to seeing how that particular person, captured in
the film at a particular time and in a particular place, provides
something to learn from, a place to start identifying one’s
problems as the first step towards a solution.” (Pot Pourri,
June, 1974)

Distribution began this spring, concentrating on people who
were then planning university and community college curric-
ula, and on “hard-to-reach”’ people such as those mothers
working either exclusively outside of their homes or those
working exclusively at home. The second wave of distribution
will come in the fall when the last four films will be finished.
An innovative method of distribution will include a great deal
of supportive material automatically accompanying each film
so that people can “take off on their own”’ as well as employ
the film in a structured workshop-type setting.

Of the four remaining films, Kathleen Shannon will make
three and produce the fourth — The Spring and Fall of Nina
Polanski — to be made by two other women. “For a while last
year,” she adds, “it looked to me as if making these films
could become a way of life, because people keep suggesting
more. Maybe it’s a matter now of us finding other funding to

KATHLEEN SHANNO
Working Mothers

i
hs

make more films. Maybe we need to use another format. Or
maybe this is just about enough of this kind of film. I don’t
know. Maybe it will come clear in the fall when the other four
we’re working on now are finished. Ideally, I’d like to make
another three films to complete this group: The middle-aged
woman going back to work or going to work for the first time,
the parent single by choice, and maybe one about alternative
lifestyles.” (Pot Pourri, June, 1974)

Her reaction to the possible formation of a woman’s unit
for 1975? She feels that a women’s unit in English production
at the Board would be justified because “the credibility of
women’s films would come about a lot better if women
worked together for awhile. ... We’ve been working each on
our own for such a long time. And I think we could develop
really different kinds of documentaries. | think that could
happen. I think it could be very fine.” (Pot Pourri, June,
1974)

Barbara Greene, a former freelance writer-researcher-

producer became involved with the Film Board when others
encouraged her to pursue a means of expressing what she
really wanted to say about things she cared about. “I haven’t
done many films,” she says, “I’m a novice. But I’ve wanted to
make films for the last nine or ten years.”’ For the NFB series,
West, shown on CBC this year, Barbara Greene directed a
half-hour film, Ruth and Harriet, Two Women of the Peace,
about the contrasting lives of two women living on the Peace
River frontier.

“The film itself doesn’t do what it should do. If ’'d been
sure of myself as a filmmaker, and had more time to work on
it I think I would have made it richer, tougher. I would have
made it more real. You would have seen more parts of their
personalities. It would have been a bit more interesting. A
little bit more dynamic, a bit more total.” (From Pot Pourri,
June, 1974) Despite her reservations, the film is an insightful
and haunting work that establishes Barbara Greene’s talents as
a filmmaker who is capable of doing far more than just the
“one or two lovely things in film” that she hopes to create in
the future.

Within yet another branch of the NFB — the Media-
Research Division — Dina Lieberman has made a videotape
“film” (now transferred to 16mm black and white film and
soon available c/o Dina Lieberman at Media-Research, NFB,
Montreal) entitled Still a Woman. About breast-cancer, the
film “started out as a woman’s film, a woman’s problem, but |
feel now that it’s a people’s film. ... I see it very much as
something going much further culturally, even internationally.
Obviously it’s not just a Canadian thing. | mean... for me the
fundamental issue was this incredible emphasis on breasts. And
also the larger issue of how anyone really begins to cope with
their lives again after a tremendous traumatic experience.”
(From Pot Pourri, June, 1974)

She has since done a freelance project on day-care,
sponsored by the Montreal Family Services Association, and is
presently working on a film on computer datinge

Cinema Canada 55

If you have only
one place to go
and two ways to get there:

Why notgo
first class?

NO CLASS FIRST CLASS

. Hello, who do you wish . Hi George, how’re you
to see. doing. Let me get Tom.
_ You need this film . Sure it'll be ready around
tomorrow — 10:00.
Can't promise anything. . Shit man, you can screen
it at our place at 10:15.
. Sorry, | can’t book (If it runs into noon and

screening time til Friday. your client likes it—
we'll buy the wine &
cheese lunch).
. Friday (11:02 am.). . “Hey, thats fine, lets doa
Sorry your time is up, transfer, record and mix
the soap company are while we're hot”.

looking at a demo. Susie, get me O’Neill at

Mirrophonic.

We understand the business.

QUINN LABS |

380 Adelaide Street West, Toronto M5V1R7 368-3011

#

Laurinda Hartt —

x

In 1941, two years after the creation of the National Film
Board, Film Commissioner John Grierson invited animator
Norman McLaren of Scotland to join the Board as head of its
animation department. Thus began the Board’s active and
creative association with animated film, a most important
facet of NFB production.

René Jodoin, head of French production’s animation de-
partment since the mid 1960’s, joined the Board’s fledgling
animation department in the early 40’s. His early work
included the direction of three short animated films — Carry
on, Alouette, and Quadrille — segments in the English-language
musical animated film series, Let’s All Sing Together. Jodoin
left the Board in 1948, but returned in 1954 continuing his
work primarily in English production since an autonomous
French unit had not yet been formed. In 1965, he commenced
work as head of the French unit’s animation department.

His work on a 1950’s NFB series of scientific films for
classroom use had inspired his interest in the creation of an
animated film format “that would be attractive to people
generally and, when used in the context of education, would
be valuable in more ways than one. I tried to establish a type
of film that would correspond to a filmmaker’s objective as
well as to the role of passing on a certain kind of informa-
tion.”

As a result, Jodoin directed several award-winning animated
jilms in the 1960’s which explored geometric shapes including
the square (in Ronde carrée or “Dance Squared’’) and the
triangle (in Notes on a Triangle). The response, especially to
Notes on a Triangle, was “tremendously encouraging”’ says
Jodoin and not only at the festival level: direct feedback
received from a wide range of people, from’ physicists to
housewives, was “most interesting” because “the film is
nothing in a sense, it’s what the film is doing” and how people
are reacting to it — learning from it as well as appreciating it as
a film.

Withing the animation department, the key words are
exploration and experimentation, as various modes of anima-
tion are being exploited in an attempt to expand the expres-
siveness of film animation. It is a search “not in any way
limited to drawings,” says Jodoin.

An association between the Board and NRC (National
Research Council) has been established to explore the capabil-
ities of computor technology in the realm of film beyond the
so-called ‘‘computer graphics” — originally developed for
industrial use (such as in the creation and testing of aircraft
designs) — which have encouraged some computer experts to
attempt to become artists. But Jodoin notes that such experts
are often too impressed by the computer’s ability to create
“interesting images”.

Evidence that the Board’s work in computerized animation
has gone far beyond the creation of interesting individual
images is found in Peter Foldes’ La Faim/Hunger, winner of
the special jury prize for Best Short at the 1974 Cannes Film
Festival. “In La Faim, Jodoin explains, “the object was to
push the system as far as it would go.” Rather than a
collection of abstract images, La Faim employed a script
conceived in the traditional manner without concern for the
peculiarities of computer programming. Foldes’ drawings form
the visual basis of the film, the end result retaining the essence
of the drawings’ original aritstry but with the computer having

F ee
RENE JODOIN:

WSS
1 ANIMATI
x / Se a
Se

‘

a»

~

ee
ps

»

+. s, .
= “Ss
oF =
= PS
« ~ > 4
RS 3
; -
paw >
s . 3S
>
. & =|
Ree cS
x i
Rae ac!
; &
.
s

~
SS

ae

~.
*S.
>.

imposed something very rich. With La Faim the preoccupation
was “to have a dynamic continuity of idea” and a gradual
evolution of idea as well as image. For Jodoin, film is not
solely a visual medium — its visual quality must have some
unifying purpose. “We’ve been swamped with all kinds of
technologies,” he notes, ‘‘People just press buttons, cut all this
together, and then want you to sit there. I get very bored
watching most things that are being done.”

Despite the Board’s progress in the use of computers in
film-making, Jodoin finds that computers are still primitive in
terms of manipulation of film time at will. Nevertheless, a
marvellous potential is there. “Animation with this kind of
tool can achieve a cramatic impact it never could before,
because you can exceed conventional modes of animation and
technology. Computer technology allows you to choose times
that are beyond the economic possibilities of conventional
animation. For one thing, you can go beyond the high speed
camera and change an image perceptibly without the viewer
knowing when it changed. So you can have vertical montage of
time which could be incredibly dense yet quite accessible to an
audience which senses things but doesn’t quite know why it is
experiencing something until later.”

Other modes of animation being explored within Jodoin’s
department and used in recent NFB films include: pixillation;
drawing on film (a technique pioneered by McLaren); a film
with drawings done, as Jodoin describes, “directly on paper in
monotype so that an engraving effect is achieved with a
character very rich artistically, and a technique not seen in
industry” (i.e. outside the creative experimental atmosphere of
NFB animation departments); a film in which the drawings
have been done on paper with a brush; a film with blocks
animated in two and three dimensions; i.e. with animation on
the blocks which are themselves animated; and a film ex-
ploring further the possibilities of paper cut-out animation.

Guest animators continue to play an important role at the
Board. Czechoslovakian Bretislav Pojar (visiting last year) won
further recognition for the NFB in the animation field by
receiving the Grand Prix for Best Short film at Cannes 1973
for Balablok, a film in a style Jodoin describes as ““a marriage
of cut-outs and cell animation.” Such guests introduce their
particular techniques and thus assist the NFB’s animators in
developing skills they can incorporate into their creation of
new styles and techniques.

The English-language animation department headed by Wolf
Koenig, is presently producing a series of films on Canadian
poetry; the French-language department is concentrating on
individual films and has no immediate plans for any animated
series.

The departments meanwhile continue to rack up prizes in
international film festivals. Norman McLaren was recently
honoured with the Unicrin prize at a retrospective of his films
at the Berlin Film Festival for his outstanding film accom plish-
ments over the years; and two more NFB animation films, Au
bout du fil and Animation from Cape Dorset recently won
awards at the World Animation Film Festival in Zagreb,
Yugoslavia. Au bout du fil, directed by Paul Driessen, was
awarded a prize for artistic achievement and Animation from
Cape Dorset, done by Eskimo artists from that area won the
Jury Award for “‘the amazing discovery of new possibilities in
animations’

Cinema Canada 57

Photo: Baltazar

MARTIN DEFALCO

Stephen Chesley

DIRECTOR,
“THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LEDGER"

“The values of the Film Board,” says director Martin Defalco,
“are sort of a microcosm of Canada.”’ Defalco has made several
films in his years at the Board, but he was also President of the
creative personnel’s union (SGCT) last year and he’s one of the
most articulate members of a profession that usually cherishes
words very little. He sees the Board as a social force, ideally,
and realises that discussing the situation there in terms of
politics is very appropriate.

He continues by commenting further on the French-English
relationship. ““The English and French do have a tolerance for
each other, even though they don’t move back and forth and
communicate. Generally if there’s a problem they solidify, but
other than that they’re quite willing to live in their own
milieu. An indication of what Canada is about is that when
they made Adieu Alouette they didn’t bring it to the French
unit.

“Certain things can work but it depends on the time.
Maybe the French will say they don’t want any looking. Right
now there’s a political reality about what’s going on here and
we've got to sort it out. In opposition the pressure’s on us to
sort out our own thinking and also to see in a creative sense if
we still are together in any way. Over a period of time that’s
what Canada is all about.

“The French unit was asked to do West and refused. No
Québécois wants to do a film about English Canada, even
though there are French Canadians who would. But don’t
expect visions of big, growing, waving wheat fields of material-
istic Canada. It would be an entirely new perception which is
interesting and worthwhile even if in a sense it’s not what we
want to hear. L’Acadie, lAcadie was Québécois in New
Brunswick, and it so happens that that is something that has to
be said and understood.

58 Cinema Canada

“In some way the Film Board every so often does do that,
which is much to its credit.”

Defalco has this view of the Board as in the continual
throes of a dilemma, and he expanded on what he sees as the

-horns. “We go through periods. Management seems so fucked

up, and then films come out and they’re good — Corporation,
Action and Reaction, mine — and we say management can’t be
so bad. Of course these come out simultaneously with a lot of
junk.

“‘Deomcratisation and its effects really comes and goes.
We’re trying to work in that area, but what we find is that we
really don’t have the structures and we don’t understand what
we're asking for, so we get screwed. A good example is the
programming committee. You discuss ideas, allocations, areas.
It’s a magnificent idea. But what happens at some of those
meetings is that it’s really hard to make them work. A lot of us
are filmmakers and in a sense we really hate the bureaucratic
thing, but that’s bad because the bureaucrats we have to deal
with are bureaucrats all day long, it’s their job.

“T had a union problem recently with the Film Board, and
to reconstruct what I went through, I suddenly realised that I
don’t have any paper, I don’t send memos out and I’m not
that concerned about it. I was really snowed under by all their
paper.

‘“‘Management tries to reflect what’s going on but it’s hard
for them. They believe in an authoritarian system, most of
them, and to try and develop democratic processes under
those circumstances is difficult. But I think that slowly we are.
What I find discouraging is that as film people and as kind of
leaders, we always want to see what other people see and
reflect. We’re never really ahead.

“I think it’s true of our programming concepts too. We
really aren’t at the gut issues — we’re near but not at them. So
even though Sydney (Newman) said he’d like to do a series
about American/Canadian relations, everyone said, Oh no.
We’re never going to be able to say anything about that,
especially after Gilles Groulx’ film gets censored. Adieu
Alouette is acceptable, but an independent project in the
Challenge for Change on syndicatism is not, because anything
that deals with syndicatism brings in nationalism, which is
probably true, and that’s no combination for the Film Board. I
could go and shoot Chartrand and say Hey, isn’t he great...
and you should hear him speak English, too!

Defalco laughs at the thought, and it should be noted that
Defalco, a tall, heavyset person, laughs often. It’s part of his
charm, and his ability to see potential satire undoubtedly
makes him a stronger filmmaker, even when his attitude in the
film is deadly serious. He’s made films on everything from Don
Messer to trawler fisherman to the Armed Forces to Japanese-
Canadians reminiscing about internment during World War
Two, but his enthusiasm and his conviction and his filmmaking
philosophy are most noticeable in his two most recent efforts:
The Other Side of the Ledger, a film about the Hudson’s Bay
Company made with Willie Dunn and from the Indian point of

view; and Cold Journey, a feature about a young Indian boy,
which, going against tradition, uses real Indians as participants.

And despite much talk about content in his films, which is
evident in discussions about Ledger or Cold Journey, Delfaco
does have definite ideas about one topic under much dis-
cussion at the Board: who films what. “I think there’s
something good about an outsider coming in and getting first
impressions. Really good journalism can show you something
that by being involved in it you can’t quite see. There seems to
be a middle ground. You’re there and you don’t come in with
a great deal of expertise, so you sort of observe the obvious.
The obvious is important. But if you stay a bit longer, you
start questioning the obvious. You have to come in at that
second level to do investigative journalism. You’re now into
areas of personal prejudice, and you’ve really committed
yourself to doing it right.

“But that’s only one facet of information. And journalism
is not the highest form of information or investigation.”

Obviously Defalco feels that his two recent efforts fit into
some other facet. And, as he explains, they also reveal much
about what he describes as the tensions and dilemma in the
Board. “The Other Side of the Ledger was a co-production
between myself and Willie Dunn, an Indian, and it’s the Indian
view of the Hudson’s Bay Company, a white company. Willie
is a filmmaker but it’s the biggest film he’s done. We just
collaborated. Willie knew the people; I had worked up there
and I knew basically what we would expect. We had to get the
important spokesmen to say it, we both knew what it was. In a
sense I would do the technical thing. We would discuss it and
say Now who do we talk to? and Willie would say we need this
person and that person.

“We did have Indians in the crew but overall there aren’t
enough Indian filmmakers. We have an Indian film crew at the
Board that’s developing and slowly there’s some good people
coming along. You would wonder why it’s taken so long. Four
or five years ago there were none, then all of a sudden there’s a
rush to catch up, and that has a terrible sense of tokenism.
That’s exactly what it is. But then all the liberals say, ‘Well we
can’t have tokenism.’ Well, shit, it’s the first step! I mean you
might as well declare it, we’ve got some catching up to do.”

The Other Side of the Ledger moves along in the catching
up direction very well. It’s a moving statement by the Indians
about their view of the Hudson’s Bay, done in a form of
visuals backed up by Indian narrators. But Defalco also sees a
need for a fictional form to tell his story. Hence Cold Journey,
a film as yet uncompleted but again showing the dilemma.

“IT got into shit over Cold Journey. It’s a strange film, in a
sense one of the truthful films about Indians, at least the
Indians say it is. But what happens is you get these strange
reactions. People have preconceptions of stereotypes. You
know they really think all Indians are Jewish actors in
Hollywood. First off, to make the film it was hard to think,
you know, Do you cast Indians as Indians? My feeling was if
we’re the Film Board we cast Indians as Indians, not like Little
Big Man where they went through people like Richard Boone
and Olivier to play the chief until someone said Dan George.
That was a remarkable breakthrough, Dan George playing an
Indian. I mean, goddammit, Penn used an Indian!

“The Indians are aware of it. But the first reaction you get
when you’re making a film about Indians is Well, you can’t get
an Indian to play it. You run into these crazy clashes. People
say they talk too slowly or you’ve got to pace up the scene.
But the Indians recognise it as a very good portrayal — I mean
it’s not a portrayal, they live it so they don’t portray it — of
Indians.

“TI think that considering that we’re not in it to make
money, and since the Film Board gets social funds to make
socially important things, we have to take chances. I think
even if we screw up we’ve got to use Indians, it’s too late in
the day not to, even if we make a mistake.

““Now the dispute comes. I don’t think we made a mistake.
I think they’re magnificente’

ee
Artists,

don't delay!

Applications
for a Canada Counci!
Senior Arts Grant

or Arts Grant

must be sentin
by October 715

For professional artists and other
persons whose contribution is im-
portant to the professional arts, the
Canada Council offers :

Senior Arts Grants for professional
artists who have made a significant
contribution over a number of years.
Up to $15,000 to cover living, pro-
duction and travel costs. Closing
dates : October 15, 1974 and April 1,
1975.

Arts Grants for other professional
artists who have finished all basic
training. Up to $6,000 plus program
costs not exceeding $800 and travel
allowance, if needed. Closing dates:
October 15, 1974 and April 1, 1975.

Also available to professional artists :

e Short Term Grants

Travel Grants

Project Cost Grants

Applications are accepted at any time
of the year.

Details of these programs are given in
a brochure entitled Aid to Artists.
This brochure and application forms
are available from:

The Canada Council,

Awards Service

POSBOx TOPs,

Ottawa, Ontario

K1P 5V8

The brochure is also available from
/nformation Canada Centres.and
Regional Citizenship Branches of the
Secretary of State.

Cinema Canada 59

Photo: Baltazar

ANTONIO VIELFAURE

Stephen Chesley

D1IScziSsUcION

Numbers. Staggeringly big numbers. One thousand titles in the
catalogue, yes, but then there’s the number of prints in
distribution — and the total audience. 50,000 prints in Canada
for non-commercial showing, six to eight thousand in each of
the Toronto and Montreal offices alone, 400,000 bookings in
Canada last year. That adds up to 40,000,000 in the audience.
Then you add 18,000 theatrical bookings and television
exposure and sales of prints. 201,000,000 total Canadian
audience.

There are also 40,000 prints in distribution abroad for
non-commercial showings. Add to that television, theatrical
and sales exposure and you have a world-wide audience,
including Canada, of 766,000,000 people.

The above figures are estimates, of course, but National
Film Board Director of Distribution Tony Vielfaure says it’s a
pretty accurate picture of what his department is concerned
with. It’s his job, and his emphasis, that breaks down the
unwieldy numbers into individual showings. “My background
is with the community and it’s the important thing to me,” he
says, “that is, the people we’re trying to reach.”

The entire structure and execution of distribution at the
Board is set up along those criteria. All efforts are pointed
toward a particular potential audience, whether for the film’s
content itself or for the nature of the audience itself.

Vielfaure is ultimately responsible for distribution here and
abroad, and his staff consists of two hundred and seventy
persons, mostly clerks and secretaries, but especially about
seventy-five film officers. ‘“The branch is divided into four
divisions, centred at headquarters. There’s the publicity/pro-
motion division, the media research division, the commercial
division, and the library services division. The heads of each,
plus the assistant director of distribution and myself, meet
weekly as a committee. We share decision-making.

60 Cinema Canada

The roles of each division are as 1ollows. The commercial is
concerned with where to sell, contracts, anything that involves
money and sales. The library people worry about loaning
prints and supplying Canadian posts abroad. Media research
works with the above, but is also concentrating on difficult
films, communication workshops, special projects with specific
films like the Corporation series which is neither commercial
nor free. And publicity/promotion handles information, press
relations, advertising, public relations, and so on.

“In the field we divide the group into Canada and abroad.
Stoddard, my assistant, looks after the field. I concentrate on
policy and overall functioning. There are six regions in Canada,
each with a head office and various other offices located in
municipalities. Internationally there are seven offices. The
largest is in New York. Chicago and San Francisco offices are
primarily involved with travel films. We also maintain staffs in
London, Paris, Tokyo, and Delhi.

“Each foreign office has one NFB representative who is
sent out there for two to five years. The rest of the staff is
recruited locally. The exception is New York, which has more
representatives. They’re involved in sales of our films to TV or
theatres, sales of 16mm prints to distributors or directly to
users, as well as participation in film festivals and film weeks.
They work closely with the Canadian embassy or high com-
mission people to promote the use of our films.”

Back in Canada there is another major activity: feature
distribution in theatres, not to mention shorts. For this job the
Board, although it participates actively in the publicity end,
prefers to hire outside distributors. “We use several distrib-
utors, going by who does the best job for our films. The shorts
go out mainly via Columbia Pictures. We’ve had a long
association with them and they’ve given us very good distribu-
tion. They don’t have exclusivity but because they are willing
to do it and they do it well, they have a majority of the shorts.

“For features we use several distributors. France Film,
Faroun Film, Cinépix, Columbia, Gendon (Astral purchased
them recently), Keg. It’s a strictly commercial arrangement
whereby for an advance on the royalty we give them rights for
a period of time.

“For television we deal directly with the CBC or individual
stations. During the past year we’ve had twenty-four prime
time hours and fifteen others on the English network, and nine
prime and forty-three others on the French network.

“Tt’s not a market where there’s a lot of money.” Recently
the Board was associated with box office grosses in the media
such as never before. The reason was the feature Cry of the
Wild, Bill Mason’s nature film picked up by a hotshot Ameri-
can four-wall company and registering ticket takes in the
millions. Much criticism was leveled at the NFB for not
rewarding Mason properly, for not insuring that Keg Produc-
tions got the best deal, and for lining its own pocket with
untold riches.

Vielfaure puts the situation into perspective. “Hundreds of
theatres were used, and everywhere everyone hears cash
registers jingling and thinks the Board is rolling in money. Not

so. This type of distribution is very special, the four-wall (the
distributor rents the theatre for a set fee and gets all the box
office; if he wins, he wins big, because most grosses are shared
on a percentage system. If he loses, the theatre wins, because
they still get their costs and a profit. — S.C.) It necessitates
expensive promotion, market studies, renting the theatres. To
get four million dollars you may invest three.

“We figure we'll get back, by next April, about $300,000.
There’s no doubt that we’ll be getting back the film’s cost. But
it’s dangerous to become dependent on income because that
could determine the kinds of films we make. We could have a
lot of unsatisfied Canadians. What impresses me more is that a
hell of a lot of people are going to see the film.”

Such is the case with all of the NFB catalogue. “In Canada
demand for the films far exceeds our capacity to answer
requests. We could probably double the number of prints, staff
and space and not fill the requests that come, especially when
it’s a free service.”

More money isn’t really the answer, especially when other
factors are considered, such as life of the print physically, and
who to use as distribution points, as well as new ideas to
increase the audience.

“We tried a rental system for about two months four years
ago. It didn’t work. I have a budget to buy my prints from, the
library, and I knew we didn’t have enough money. So we
gathered as many Canadian library boards as possible for a
meeting in Montreal.

“The old service of giving a library a hundred prints and
saying do what you can is no good — after three or four years
prints are no good because the library has no film professional
or equipment to maintain them. So we said that if the library
has a professional and the equipment, we’ll sell a print at cost
of celluloid, about fifty per cent of the regular cost. It’s been
working very well. We’ve managed to place more prints in
distribution this way.

“Other ways of increasing the audience are tried all the
time. We help with promotional material, workshops. Ian
McCutcheon in Ontario set up a children’s program in anima-
tion technique. We bring librarians to the Board’s head office
for workshops and tours. We keep the catalogue up to date
with a committee that goes over titles and every year with-
draws some films because they are out-dated through content
or references in the script.

Scene from “Images de Chine”’

“There is another vehicle just opening up: cable TV. We
had one showing where we used two channels, one of which
ran the program and the other had a phone-in with the
filmmaker and an expert on the film’s topic. Our policy with
cable is that the films must be used for inter-action, not just to
fill time. Distribution of our films on tapes is also close to
reality. We have agreements with Alberta, Saskatchewan, and
B.C. and we are negotiating with Ontario’s OECA to allow
them: to reproduce and distribute our films on tape. A large
percentage of the material shown in Canadian schools is from
abroad. With tape and film we can encourage more from
Canada.”

The goal is expansion, but not only of NFB work. A plan is
in the works to acquire non-NFB material to place in foreign
film programs along with Board films. But Vielfaure cautions
filmmakers not to rush the Board’s offices offering their latest
epics. “It’s still very much in the planning stage and we only
have a small budget. But we do hope that this year we can
start acquiring non-NFB films to complement whatever we
don’t have ourselves. We have a working arrangement with the
information division of external affairs. We'll start screening
during the next few months, and we’ll look mainly at shorts
because the programs are placed in libraries or booked out to
clubs and organisations. They’re used by embassy personnel
when they go out to talk about Canada.

“We haven’t worked out the selection process yet but we’ve
got a working committee which consists of two people from
library services and two from information and external affairs
and us. There is certainly room for more films than the Film
Board produces if we’re going to have a good information
program abroad.”

After work as a labour union organiser among immigrants
in Manitoba, where he used NFB films to teach them about
Canada, Vielfaure joined the Film Board as a salesman in
French areas of Manitoba, in 1959. Gradually he’s worked up
to distribution director, a job he’s held for the past two and a
half years. But he still, amongst all these statistics and vast
spaces, remembers his audience and returns to them in every
idea or program he discusses. He wants to reach people out
there, and in summing up his estimate of progress in this area,
he simply says, ‘‘There’s room for improvement of course, but
with the resources we have I’m proud to say we’re reaching
that many peoplee’

Cinema Canada 61

Photo: Baltazar

MARC DEVLIN

Stephen Chesley

PERSONNEL

The Film Board has been referred to, not affectionately, as a
factory. And if you think about it, there is that monolithic
building and the incredible range of cameras, equipment,
editing rooms, labs, offices, files, storage areas, and doors that
open and close, sealing off the multitude of rooms. But, like
any factory, The Board is material on the outside; what
operates it is people. Special people, very often, because art is
the main, not ancillary, purpose of all that physical stuff.

It’s a large group of people, too. Now numbering around
one thousand, including everyone from Sydney Newman to
freelancers to clerks and typists. To co-ordinate a staff that
size means people assigned specifically to that task, and it is
Personnel Director Mark Devlin and his own group of twenty
that oversee the other thousand.

One thousand people, with the probability of an increase in
the near future. It breaks down, continues Devlin, to 240 in
production, 210 in technical services, 150 in administration,
250 in distribution, thirty-five in the Ottawa offices, forty-five
in the government photo centre in Ottawa which services all
government departments, and the rest freelancers. The annual
turnover is about seventy or eighty, either through retirement
or leaving for another position. Most who leave are involved in

62 Cinema Canada

clerical work; very few are filmmakers. In fact, there is a
waiting list for openings in production. That’s because, says
Devlin, the working conditions are fantastic. “You can’t
duplicate this type of job anywhere in Canada. There’s a great
degree of creative freedom here that doesn’t exist anywhere
else. Personal freedom, too. Length of hair or wearing jeans —
the Film Board has always been progressive in this kind of
area. As for me, well, if you don’t have an affinity for this
type of creativity, usually you don’t work here in administra-
tion very long. I mean, you couldn’t enforce those rules
anyway.”

The main point is that, like every other area of the
existence of the Film Board, Devlin’s responsibility is not that
honey-flavoured. But neither is the scene a picture in black
and white. As Devlin illustrates, there are problem areas but
there is understanding and an attempt at communication from
both sides.

One of the sore areas is the position of freelancers. The
Board is not a closed shop, so you don’t have to join the
union, but it is the bargaining unit with administration. Just
who is eligible to join is the main bone of contention. “The
union feels the Film Board staff should grow in proportion to
budget increases. Then you have the freelancers, and the legal
complications set in because government collective bargaining
excludes freelancers. That’s unfair because two work forces
operate side by side, one covered by a union agreement and
one not covered. We spend $1.8 million annually on free-
lancers, and use a total of 175 different ones a year. Many are
hired for extremely short periods of time or because of a
particular expertise. The union wants part of the freelance
help incorporated into staff.

“Bither all work is done by staff or you contract out. We
feel we should follow the middle of the road. We should
increase our staff slightly, by about fifty or seventy-five, and
use freelancers to have access to diverse body of talent from
across the country. We must renew our staff. Many of the
creative personnel have been with the Film Board since its
inception, and they’re getting close to retirement. We must
figure out a long term program.

“You can’t just replace people like Tom Daly or Guy
Glover. We may have to overstaff so we can continue to
operate efficiently as they retire. We need apprenticeship
periods. It has to be thought out in terms of a balance in
creative staff. Everyone wants to be a director — that’s the job
here. A few years ago we had a desperate need for executive
producers. Some directors become executive producers but
they don’t like the work because it’s partly administration and
not as creative. So they take on these jobs on a temporary
basis with the understanding that they’ll be allowed to go back
to directing.

“We always seem to have an overstaffing situation in
directors — seventy-five are usually around — and we have a lot
of trouble keeping good editors or cameramen at their jobs.

“When the people get older another problem arises. You
can’t send them up to the Arctic, so we use them in some

other specialised way, for example writing commentary or
assisting another director. But many of them are not prepared
for administration work. And these men are, after all, the ones
who made the Film Board.

‘‘There’s no point in taking a person and putting him in a
job where he’s going to be unhappy. Then his productivity and
creativity will suffer. Applied to young or old, it’s a problem
in having a permanent staff.

“Not having a permanent staff — survival of the fittest — is
not a good solution. It seems to go against the trend in society.
People who want to devote their creative lives to the Film
Board are entitled to as much security as someone doing
administration work. The security makes them more produc-
tive because they don’t have to worry about paying bills.

“Of course freelancers are more efficient financially. A lot
of time is wasted between projects because of budget or slow
approval and permanent staff might be idle for a time.
Administration, by the way, can be just as unproductive, but
it’s less noticeable. And we seem to do all our work between
May and October. If our production was better planned we
could keep people busy all year round.

“Layoffs and firing are so hard to discuss because of the
complications. I mean, most people have talents, but they’re
either ignored or not utilised properly. It’s very hard to tell
who is the dead wood. If a person’s been with an organisation
for fifteen or twenty years, how can you argue that they’re
incompetent? — and it certainly doesn’t reflect well on
management if they are! We’ve had situations here where a
filmmaker has been unproductive for several years then all of a
sudden they become very productive.

As a government agency, and a federal one at that, the Film
Board is subject to another personnel variable: both French
and English are on staff, and bilingualism is compulsory. In
production there are two separate units, with 80 in the
French and 160 in the English. The lower number in the
French is because the unit was established only ten years ago,
and the turnover of staff is greater. ““Many go into feature
production in Montreal, because there are more outlets. That’s
healthy. The English situation is different: not overstaffed, but
tight. The ideal is having ten filmmakers come and ten go each
year. Then we’d get access to all the best talent in Canada.
We'll probably increase the number in the French unit — the
union thinks we should.

“Our policy on bilingualism is government policy: up to a
year to become bilingual. We mainly use government schools.
If they can’t become bilingual, we have to make other
arrangements. Learning a second language is a problem. We
haven’t had too much success in making people bilingual.
Some just haven’t got the talent to learn a second language.

Scene from “On est loin du soleil”’.

It’s very disruptive to work and to your personal life because
you almost have to forget English for a couple of years to be
effective. This transforms your personality because your style
of delivery and everything else changes. It’s very exhausting. I
don’t think people appreciate this.

“Overall it’s a cultural enrichment. I have my doubts as to
whether it will work, but it’s worth the experiment.”

Devlin himself is bilingual, having grown up in Quebec City
in a family that came from both language groups. He came to
the Board after some years with the CBC, and it’s his job to
plan the manpower, recruit people for vacant jobs, administer
a salary program, handle collective bargaining, carry out
training programs, administer staff benefit programs, and so
on. He’s a firm believer in The Peter Principle, too. “I believe
in it, especially in government, where it’s the greatest problem.
A good technician makes a lousy supervisor very often. I'd
rather go outside the organisation for administration.”

Which brings up the logical question: how does one get a
job with the Film Board?

“Jobs are posted and advertised nationally. There is a
problem for people who don’t live in Montreal. It’s a natural
tendency to favour local people. That goes for any government
agency. We’re trying to get away from that. Besides, the
filmmaking community is not that great. There’s a grapevine,
especially in Toronto. And we do hire on location, plus hiring
people in our regional production centres.

“There’s always a long line-up for the jobs. Applicants are
judged by personnel and production people. Ad hoc commit-
tees are formed for each job. Now I’m not a filmmaker, nor do
I pretend to be, but if I want to hire a filmmaker, I know what
a filmmaker does. I don’t think I’m qualified to judge talent,
but there are certain things in personnel and administration
that help you identify what constitutes talent — background,
references, track record.

‘“‘The way to break in to the Board is to get a little freelance
contract, maybe for a week. If you do a good job, you'll get
other things. Then a vacancy is posted and they apply and
they get the job and they’re in the Film Board.

“For students just starting it’s very tough. The competition
is very great, and very seldom do we take anyone right from
graduation. We like them to be trained. We do maintain close
contact with universities, and many of our staff teach at them.
If our budget is increased, we should have a formal apprentice-
ship program. We had that practise once before — ten people a
year were hired to work for a five year period, but there was
no formal program.

“I think the next five years will see a big turnover. Many
will retire. There are a lot of new vistas for young people
making films@’

Cinema Canada 63

JOHN SMITH

Stephen Chesley

TV. PRODUCTION

There is a discussion about filmmaking that constantly makes
the rounds of the Film Board halls, and basically it is a premise
that the best interpreter of a scene is the outsider; he comes in
fresh and without prejudice, and hence sees more and sees
more accurately than someone from inside. Whether this is
true or not is beside my point, but there are benefits from
such a view, even if the opposite method is also fruitful. So
let’s apply the premise to the Board itself, and listen to John
Smith, a producer who came from the private sector only a
year and a half ago. His comments are about anything and
everything that occurs at the Board, or are part of the Board’s
philosophy.

Smith himself is a producer. For the past year he has been
executive producer of Studio F, from which has emerged the
Language Drama Series and West. His experience at the Board
has given him access to most of the complaints and compli-
ments that emerge from discussions about the Film Board. He
describes the Board as “‘a remarkable place in many ways. It’s
also a tired old bureaucracy.

“At a certain time it was a place with a sense of purpose,
with a group of young people who knew what they wanted to
do, which was to make films, any films. It was a different time
in the world when there was no stigma attached to doing
propaganda work and that’s what the Film Board was and
remains, basically a propaganda organisation. Whenever you do
anything that is implicitly in any way critical of the govern-
ment, questions are raised all over the place. There isn’t even
the institutional separation like at the CBC between the
government and the CBC.

“The Board has become a fortress. The attitude toward
outsiders is hostile and defensive, more so with filmmakers
than with management. For many here the Board has become
a place that must provide work for those who, by hook or by
crook, have gained a permanent foothold. The Board does not,
therefore, attract the best filmmaking talent in the country,
nor does it seek it out because there are enormous hassles over
the fact that they’re freelance, and the idea is that every film
must be made by staff. It’s a factory mentality.

“Job security is good, but there is the question of the
influence of organised labour as progressive or conservative in
our society. Not that the union is the cause of dead wood. The
union has its place — and certainly I’m a beneficiary of it in
that I get paid a decent salary — but the fact is that the union
situation has created a kind of fortress attitude between
organised and unorganised labour and I, as a producer having
productions to staff, felt myself under tremendous constraints
to staff those productions with permanent staff. I didn’t have
the leeway to think, ‘Who’s the best person in the country to
make that film?’ To the extent that I gave in to those
pressures, I did the National Film Board’s viewing public and
everyone a disservice.

“And there is a whole institutional set-up here where you
have to go through committees which operate in a kind of
producer function in saying, ‘Yes you may do that.’ I would
take projects to them and the important question they would
ask is, ‘Is the director you have chosen a member of the staff?’

64 Cinema Canada

If yes, the entire atmosphere would be different. If no, the
question is not, ‘Is it a great film? Will it do the country
good?’, the question is ‘Why can’t you find a staff member to
do it?’

“On the freelance side, freelance discriminates against the
very inexperienced and those middle aged and older — the
whole film industry discriminates against the older — because
forty-five-year-olds are considered old-fashioned. At the Film
Board there is a wider range of age and experience than in
private industry. I think that’s a healthy thing, and it’s an
advantage of security.

‘“‘The problem of English and French is another matter. The
Film Board is not in its proper milieu, except for the French
section. The centre of French filmmaking is Montreal. There’ s
a healthy interplay between the Board and the private indus-
try. No such interplay takes place between the Board and the
English industry, because its centre is in Toronto. There
should be two Film Boards, one in Montreal and one in
Toronto, and I think a Toronto production centre will come.
The farce of the Board — and of this country — is that it’s one
thing to be bilingual in Montreal and another to be bilingual in
Victoria.

“Halifax and B.C. production centres have taken the atti-
tude that they don’t want the same kind of staff relationships
that exist here. They have very little staff and much. more
freelance involvement.

“Regional production is a difficult problem when you ask,
‘Who should make a film about B.C.? The regional office in
B.C. or the central production office?’ You find that kind of
attitude growing here, and it’s part of a growing regionalism
that I’m very much opposed to. There is a natural centrali-
sation of talent. Talent is drawn to a magnet of a centre, and
in English Canada that centre is Toronto. The development of
culture there is national in a way, like New York or Los
Angeles.

‘“‘There’s professionalism and creativity, that is, art raised to
a higher level. Natives with port-a-packs are essential, but so
are Toronto films, because Toronto people are full-time
professionals. A cameraman doesn’t spend half his time being a
resident of somewhere, he is a cameraman. Also you have a
community of people in the film business who create sparks
off one another, and that’s important, film being fundament-
ally a group activity.”

Pausing for a minute, Smith emphasises that he is speaking
from his unique vantage point. “As with any big organisation,
the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing. Three
quarters of what happens at the Board I don’t know about, so
when I criticise the Board, it’s very much from the aspect of
the Board that I happen to see in my activity.”

Smith’s activity has been basically as producer overseeing
the Language Series and the West series. His role was different
in each. ““There was a point in the Language Series where I
took over one production. The production had already been
scripted, the director chosen, and I just did co-ordinating
work. Mainly I put together teams of people as well as riding
the financial side.

’

Photo: Baltazar

“One of the interesting aspects I discovered when I came
here was that the Board had an incredible tendency to go way
over budget on many projects, which caused periodic crises of
lack of money. So we were under pretty tight strictures to stay
within budget, and in terms of the Board’s usual way of
producing things and in terms of drama, they were fairly tight
budgets. So a lot of time was spent keeping things on the rails
financially. Everything did come in under budget.

“The actual amount spent is not easy to calculate.
$200,000 is the sum given, but it’s very hard to figure out
what the real cost is because so much is built into the internal
budget. The Board is an overhead cost which is now up to
twenty per cent. The studio doesn’t cost anything in the
budget, that is no rental, but personnel for set construction,
lighting are charged. Money is a very complicated thing around
here. Inside costs are fixed expenses and outside costs are cash
— that’s the distinction.”

Smith described the Language Series in more detail. ““They
are aimed mainly at the classroom. They were designed as
twenty twenty-minute films to teach English as a second
language and to entertain. A package of support materials has
been developed for teaching teachers how to use the films,
consisting of slides, tapes, booklets and pictures. Each is one
feature-length story broken up into twenty-minute segments.
We made A Moving Experience, Heatwave, A Star is Lost, The
Winner, and The Egg Story.

“The French unit took a different tack. It’s not aimed at
language levels but at age levels: a ten-minute series for kids,
twenty-minute for teenagers, and forty-minute for adults.
Also, they want to present Quebec culture, whereas we, being
a sort of bastardised English group sitting in the middle of
French Quebec, have no culture to reflect. Our series doesn’t
intend to reflect Canadian culture. There are no Canadian
references in particular, except location.

“We're at the point now where we’re testing out the
marketing of the films. I don’t know how many will be
released in the language form. The feature version may
subsequently find some general release on TV, possibly.”

Bringing up the subject of the Film Board and making
features, or anything, for television, draws a very direct
summary comment from Smith: “I think it would be fantastic
for the Board to make features for TV.” But he is careful in
his elaboration to point out the pitfalls as well as the reasons

why the Board should become more active in TV production.

“I think you'll find in the English unit is a lot of criticism
of TV and a lot of questioning about whether the Film Board
should be working for TV. Part of it is the fear of being
swallowed up by the giant CBC and of becoming a production
house for the CBC. And part of the hesitation is a kind of
blind stupidity that I don’t understand. You see, the Film
Board has lost its audience. Traditionally it had one — in
theatres. I mean, Sydney Newman produced a series of weekly
fifteen-minute films.

“But the Film Board is not producing for theatres except
the shorts, which are a very small part of its production. So
the Film Board has been consigned to a secondary audience,
not a mass audience any more. Everyone in this place would
love to have their stuff on TV. In one fell swoop they get a
million or two million people seeing what they do. People do
make films to be seen.”

Smith’s attitude toward the Board and features is also one
of Let’s get going already! “It’s a great shame that the Film
Board feels as tender as it does about drama and features.
There is a feeling that the government has the CFDC which is
supposed to foster feature production, and so the English unit
concentrates on documentary. French production makes
features all the time, partly because they’re less under the gaze
of the commissioner.

“I think there should be a film industry in Canada, and I
think the Film Board should be a cornerstone of that industry.
The Film Board is a unique opportunity for Canada to make
features that don’t fall completely under the terrible crunch of
the commercial demands which are that you’ve got to make
films for the American market. These demands have a terrible
effect on developing a Canadian identity.

“But if you get involved, you must have a respect toward
the art. There can be no committee effect trying to say
whether a project truly represents Canada, and therefore no
sex, swearing, putting down institutions, so that you end up
with a typically constipated government bureaucracy propa-
ganda piece of garbage.

‘“‘The Language Series proved to everyone in this place that
one can make feature-length films fairly cheaply. And you
need the continuity of drama to be successful when you do it.
Now a director gets one dramatic work every five years’

Cinema Canada 65

Duncan Thorne

Until recently the NFB has been merrily interpreting Canada
to Canadians without knowing how well Canadians have been
receiving the message, and since its early days the Board has
seen this as a problem. It was still thinking of wartime propa-
ganda when it first considered an audience research section
back in 1945. Nothing happened then, but the idea has
resurfaced in new forms every few years. Until 1972.

That year Mark Slade of distribution was asked to produce
a working model for a research unit. The result is Audience
Needs and Reactions, a compact group now headed by Sandy
Burnett. Burnett cringes when he looks back at the post-war
proposal. “It now sounds rather heavy and ‘1984’ in orienta-
tion. This place is not made up by people who are first and
foremost out to make it into a slick propaganda machine.”

He and his core staff of three researchers, Bill Gallant, Bill
Litwack and Claude Perin, are not about to find out what
moves the masses. Instead, one aspect of their work will be the
forecasting of developments in technology, social concerns,
government policies and education. Audience Needs and Reac-
tions will try to look three to five years ahead, giving the
board time to respond in advance to new trends.

DANDY BURNETT“. -

ed on Radio-Canada in Quebec during the winter, but the
indirect effect could be more wide-spread. Société Nouvelle
prepared a questionnaire and Burnett’s group collaborated
with them in getting it published in French language news-
papers on the days of the telecasts. Viewers of the first two
programs alone returned 1600 questionnaires and telephone
response was so great it disrupted a Bell exchange. The results
of the questionnaire are now being analysed. Burnett: ‘‘The
feedback from the En tant que femmes telecasts will be useful
to the people who are planning the community release of the
Working Mothers series. They in turn are interested in getting
feedback on the effect of what they do. You take both and
Out of that may well come sufficient evidence to justify an
extension of films made specifically by and for women —
either in the film board or more generally. One of the things
that has been discussed is the possibility of establishing a
women’s unit. It might not only produce films by and about
women, interested in learning the craft of film-making. They’d
get some experience and then quite conceivably get back into
the open market of the film industry — where up to this point

they’ve faced a whole range of things from anti-feminist bias

Burnett’s group has been together s* avianars
their projects, which may affect future
mental films, found that from the ,
Canadians had held environmental mee
period. Audience Needs is now designi
more than 500 delegates who took —
Resources project of the Canadian Cou
Environment Ministers. Burnett predicts
distribution will learn what audiences we
thus gain an entree into an existing net\
groups.

Couldn’t this approach lead to 1]
Burnett recognizes that the creative asp
least as important as research findings, “‘
been short on objective data in the past
intuitive judgment.”

The unit wants to probe the success
filmmakers want to know how their auc
been thirsty for reports. The interest f«
screenings of government sponsored film
the showings outlined the types of aud.
and bad, and whether the films seemed
were for the sponsors’ benefit, but
interesting, so he sent copies to pro:
Previous feedback had amounted to
number of bookings or prints sold, so
received. “So well received it’s been a
ment,’ comments the research unit he:
number of filmmakers who from time t
you going to do that again ?’.” Lest any
about such reports, Burnett stresses: “I
assume the role of watchdog or auditor of performance
particularly.”

When Audience Needs and Reactions gets into full swing it
will be an important planning guide for the NFB, and its
findings will go automatically to the French and English
program committees.

Already the group is involved in work which would be of
major consequence to women at the board and is of direct
concern to Société Nouvelle’sEn tant que femme series televis-

66 Cinema Canada

Subscriptions

More fun than Group

SOOO O THEE H EEE E EE EES SEH EH HEHE EE ESOS HEHE EEE ESOT SHEE EEHEHH EEE EE HOE O EEE SESS

PROC ROE ETE HEE EES HEHE EEO EEE E SEER EEE HES SEES SESE THESE SEO EEE EE EET EE SES EEE EEE OES

POO COOH ERE E EEE HEE EEO EEE SEE OEE EREERE SESE ESEES SEM AE EOESESESE EES OEE SEES EEE ESEEES

One Year Two Years
$ 5.00 Canada $ 9.00
6.50 Elsewhere 12.00
4.00 Students 7.00
10.00 Institutions 20.00

If you are a student, please tell us where.

O Cheque Enclosed © Please Invoice

y 4

rm your paranola

confi

the Eecling.

Do you cue get

~~

SN

RASSSOSOY
Oy Sa

CCE

=

RR es

es |

yi
WO

read

cinema.
Canada

Duncan Thorne

Until recently the NFB has been merrily interpreting Canada
to Canadians without knowing how well Canadians have been
receiving the message, and since its early days the Board has
seen this as a problem. It was still thinking of wartime propa-
ganda when it first considered an audience research section
back in 1945. Nothing happened then, but the idea has
resurfaced in new forms every few years. Until 1972.

That year Mark Slade of distribution was asked to produce
a working model for a research unit. The result is Audience
Needs and Reactions, a compact group now headed by Sandy
Burnett. Burnett cringes when he looks back at the post-war
proposal. “It now sounds rather heavy and ‘1984’ in orienta-
tion. This place is not made up by people who are first and
foremost out to make it into a slick propaganda machine.”

He and his core staff of three researchers, Bill Gallant, Bill
Litwack and Claude Perin, are not about to find out what
moves the masses. Instead, one aspect of their work will be the
forecasting of developments in technology, social concerns,
government policies and education. Audience Needs and Reac-
tions will try to look three to five years ahead, giving the
board time to respond in advance to new trends.

Burnett’s group has been together since October. One of
their projects, which may affect future Film Board environ-
mental films, found that from the grass roots up, 1800
Canadians had held environmental meetings over a two year
period. Audience Needs is now designing a questionnaire for
more than 500 delegates who took part in the Man and
Resources project of the Canadian Council of Resource and
Environment Ministers. Burnett predicts NFB production and
distribution will learn what audiences want from films and will
thus gain an entree into an existing network of environmental
groups.

Couldn’t this approach lead to formula productions?
Burnett recognizes that the creative aspect of filmmaking is at
least as important as research findings, ““But if anything, we’ve
been short on objective data in the past and very lucky in our
intuitive judgment.”

The unit wants to probe the success of existing films, and
filmmakers want to know how their audiences react and have
been thirsty for reports. The interest follows a trial series of
screenings of government sponsored films last fall. Observers at
the showings outlined the types of audiences, reactions good
and bad, and whether the films seemed to work. The reports
were for the sponsors’ benefit, but Burnett found them
interesting, so he sent copies to producers and directors.
Previous feedback had amounted to little more than the
number of bookings or prints sold, so the reports were well
received. “So well received it’s been a bit of an embarrass-
ment,” comments the research unit head. ‘““Now we’ve got a
number of filmmakers who from time to time say, ‘When are
you going to do that again ?’.” Lest anyone get the wrong idea
about such reports, Burnett stresses: “I wouldn’t want us to
assume the role of watchdog or auditor of performance
particularly.”

When Audience Needs and Reactions gets into full swing it
will be an important planning guide for the NFB, and its
findings will go automatically to the French and English
program committees.

Already the group is involved in work which would be of
major consequence to women at the board and is of direct
concern to Société Nouvelle’s En tant que femme series televis-

66 Cinema Canada

SANDY BURNETT 8%

*eccccce

eeeceece

°

°

°

on

eee?

ecccccece

eecesecce

° °

s °

° °

e

eceseseee
e

ececccces

e

e

e
eeeeeecee

e
eeeccsecee

ed on Radio-Canada in Quebec during the winter, but the
indirect effect could be more wide-spread. Société Nouvelle
prepared a questionnaire and Burnett’s group collaborated
with them in getting it published in French language news-
papers on the days of the telecasts. Viewers of the first two
programs alone returned 1600 questionnaires and telephone
response was so great it disrupted a Bell exchange. The results
of the questionnaire are now being analysed. Burnett: ‘‘The
feedback from the En tant que femmes telecasts will be useful
to the people who are planning the community release of the
Working Mothers series. They in turn are interested in getting
feedback on the effect of what they do. You take both and
Out of that may well come sufficient evidence to justify an
extension of films made specifically by and for women —
either in the film board or more generally. One of the things
that has been discussed is the possibility of establishing a
women’s unit. It might not only produce films by and about
women, interested in learning the craft of film-making. They’d
get some experience and then quite conceivably get back into
the open market of the film industry — where up to this point
they’ve faced a whole range of things from anti-feminist bias
to simply lack of opportunities for experience.”

Cinema Canada detected some criticism of Burnett’s unit
among other Film Board members, but any criticism results
from a misunderstanding, insists Burnett. He denies merely
collecting statistics for the government and believes the unit’s
findings will be useful. In two to three years when it has had
time to make an impact it will be proved right. Until then
there’s no point worrying that it’s justifying its existence.
“‘The last thing I’m interested in is building lists of pre-digested
statistics that can go into somebody’s report somewhere. —

At the moment it’s not a very precise science we’re involved
in, and in a way I’d rather not have it too cut and dried. I
don’t think a program decision should be made solely on the
basis of objective information. Similarly it shouldn’t be made
solely on the basis of a particular person’s enthusiasm.”

What of future Film Board production trends? According
to Burnett we’ll be seeing more educational films — most now
come to us from the United States, and the Challenge for
Change/Société Nouvelle projects promise greater opportuni-
ties which Burnett hopes the Board will follow upe

BUSINESS REPLY MAIL

No postage necessary if mailed in Canada

POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY

cinema Canada

€ washineton ave +3
toronto

ontario
canada

Dy),

your paranoia

read
wnsh@MmMa
canada

CS.C ASSIGNITIENTS

Kitchener

Frank Valert recently completed a
30-minute programme, Summer Festi-
vals of Canada on locations from
Victoria to Banff, Neepawa, Ottawa,
Quebec City, to Charlottetown, and
points between for CBC ARTS 74. Cur-
rently pursuing his academic education
to obtain a Ph.D. in the field of cinema-
tography. Shortly, he will be DOP on
35mm colour shoot, Thanks to You It’s
Working for United Way 1975-76 with
Michael Jacot Productions.

Montreal

Roger Moride CSC recently completed
Psychic Surgery in the Philippines a one
hour sound production shot on location
with more than 15 famous Philippino
healers. Has completed five hour long
films for CBC about the Indians of the
St Somberne North shore, Les
Montagnais. Along with commercials in
Montreal, he will be shooting a feature
for SMR Productions during August.

Ottawa

David McNicoll recently did a 6 week,
30,000 mile trip shooting Prime
Minister Trudeau for CTV National
News. He is currently doing post produ-
ction on a 30 minute science fiction
drama The Return of the Kite Men as
director. That film was shot last Sept-
ember with Bob Whyte acting as camer-
aman.

Toronto

Robert Bocking CSC completed shoot-
ing Ecology for the Family along the
north shore of Lake Superior from
Agawa Bay to Thunder Bay for the new
series Wildlife Cinema produced by
KEG Productions. He will be working
on further films for that series.

George Dunbar (Affiliate) recently pro-
duced a film about the IBM Canada
laboratory When You Think About It,
entirely from 35mm slides using anima-
tion from the slides and colour prints.
He is currently shooting at Fort Louis-
berg, Nova Scotia a film about restora-

68 Cinema Canada

tion of the historic landmark for TV
release. In the future are TV clips on
forestry and soil testing in Ontario,
cattle ranching in Alberta and plant
construction in Quebec.

John Foster CSC recently completed a
CBC Gallery programme entitled The
Master Blasters (of Edifice Wrecks) shot
on location in Florida. Also in the
works for Gallery is There’s a Tiger in
the Trees (Your Forest is Burning).

Peter Gerretsen has been working on
commercials for Simpson’s, Pioneer
Saws, Ponderosa, Lawn Boy and Canada
Dry and there are more to come.

Ken Gregg CSC recently completed CBC
drama Find Valopchi, an hour long film
with locations in Toronto; a 30-minute
documentary profile on biologist Albert
Hochbaum of Delta, Manitoba, loca-
tions in Manitoba, for This Land on
CBC. Currently on An Angel Against
the Night a one-hour show with loca-
tions Calgary, Banff, and Toronto. In
the future is a family vacation.

Jim Mercer has been working on various
W-5 Items for CTV, and Violence in
America for CTV’s new Michael Mac-
Clear series. In the future, a ten part
psychology series Parts of the Sum for
T.A.A.W. Productions.

George Morita is booked solid with
commercials.

Kenneth Post CSC recently completed
shooting Entheos a 30-minute film on
retarded children for Marie Waisberg of
Tranby Productions. He is currently off
to the east coast directing and filming
for Wildlife Cinema series, and travelling
coast to coast for CP Hotels.

Windsor

Charles E. Fox has completed Sanc-
tuary, 16 minute colour film about the
Jack Miner Foundation, is not busy this
month, but will be busy shortly with
The London of Queen Victoria, Micro-
phones and their Use, and Spirit of ’76
(Will the Americans really celebrate
their 200th anniversary by invading
Canada?).

Vancouver

Bill Roozeboom recently completed a
film for the NFB and Department of
National Defence in the Eastern Arctic.
He is working on a sales promotion film
for S. Madill Ltd., filming at locations in
Oregon, California, and Alaska; and a
film for the government of the North
West Territories.

John Seale CSC has completed a docu-
mentary of Jon Vickers, a 90 minute
colour film shot in Saskatchewan, Mon-
treal, and London, England. Also a doc-
umentary on the Columbia River
Treaty. He is currently on Beach-
combers until Christmas, and will be
working on a documentary of the opera
Tristan, to be filmed in Montreal.

In June of this year, Roland K. Pirker
received international recognition when
his film Reprisal won a gold medal at
the “Festival of Nations’ in Austria.
Pirker works for the CBC as a film
editor, and hopes to be moving into an
assistant cameraman position in the near
future. Reprisal was filmed as his gradu-
ation project from Conestoga College in
1972. At the Austrian festival, 158 films
from 17 nations were shown, and four
were awarded gold medals. This was the
third year of the Velden festival, and
the first time a Canadian work was
entered. The organizing committee ex-
pressed their wishes to receive more
Canadian work in future yearse

P.O. Box 46, Terminal A, Toronto 116

NEWS

Clearing House Committee
Report

Generally we seem to have run into a
slow period, although I have managed to
find work for a few people recently.
Unfortunately my listings have become
very lopsided on the side of those look-
ing for work, which is perhaps not
surprising. I apologise to these people
for not having been of more assistance
and assure them that I am doing my
best. I would welcome suggestions and
volunteers to help encourage producers,
directors, and senior editors to approach
the C.F.E.G.’s clearing house when they
need editors and assistants.

John Watson cfe

Report From The
Membership Committee

At the executive meeting on June 4th, I
am happy to announce, that the follow-
ing new members joined our ranks:

— Seona MacRae, as an Affiliate. Seona
works as an assistant and a negative
cutter with Chetwynd Films.

— Ellen Adams, as an Associate. Ellen is
freelance, working mainly in sound
with the occasional job as a picture
editor. Ellen is often seen these days
working around Mirrophonic with
Ken Keeley-Ray.

We are also pleased to be able to say
that two members have jumped up a
rank:

— Bill Purchase who is working as an
editor for Haverand Productions, has
moved from Affiliate to Associate.

— Steven Lawrence, presently working
on the Swiss Family series at
Kleinburg, is now Steve Lawrence
cfe.

The following people have joined the
Guild as Affiliates and will be taking the
Seminar in August: Philip Vincent,
Elizabeth Kiddell-Shute, Lili Founier,
Sheila MacDonald, Roderick Crobie,
Hans Eijsenck and Catherine McLewin.
We welcome them all.

At the Executive meeting of July 4th,
two new members were accepted into
our ranks: we would like to welcome
Robert Ablack of Cinera Productions as
an Associate member, and also Bob
McMurtry of Bellevue Pathe as an
Affiliate.

One other application was reviewed by
the Executive, but it was decided to
request the person applying to submit a
film for screening as none of the Execu-
tive was particularly familiar with the
person’s work. This practice is becoming
more common as we feel the use of the

Reminder

Deadline for the questionnaire for the
Canadian Professional Film Directory is
approaching. As in the past only paid up
members in all categories qualify for
inclusion. In the event some of you did
not receive a questionnaire with the last
issue you can obtain one by contacting

letters “‘c.f.e.” after an editor’s name
must be a reliable indication of his
talent and ability.

Phil Auguste at Film Craft Publications,
116 Earlton Road, Agincourt, Ontario.
MIT 2R66

CFE AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN FILM EDITING

Call for Entries

To: Producers, Directors, Cameramen, Editors, Soundmen and all film makers.

NOMINATE AN EDITOR FOR THIS YEARS CANADIAN FILM EDITORS GUILD AWARDS.
Categories:

1. Drama (TV or Theatrical) Ze: Documentary

3. Promotional/Industrial 4. Educational

5. Sound Editing 6. Commercials
NOMINATIONS

The Editor must be a member of the Canadian Film Editors Guild.

Only films which have been completed to final print stage, between November 1, 1973 and October 31, 1974 will be
acceptable for award nominations.

Closing date for nominations OCTOBER 31st, 1974.
PRESENTATION:

Presentations will be made at the annual CFE Dinner and Dance — November 23rd 1974 at the Downtown Four
Seasons Sheraton.

An award will be presented in each category, only if the pre selection and final judges consider the entries merit an
award. The emphasis will be on quality.
JUDGING

The editor of the nominated film will be responsible for making a print available to the committee and judges for
screening.

Two nominations will be required for each film.

A pre selection panel, made up of the 7 awards committee members will select not more than 3 final nominations in
each category. These will be judged by a separate panel of judges for each category, who will select the final winner.

Use the form below. Mail it to: Eric Wrate — Awards Chairman, c/o Post Production Services Ltd., 501 Yonge Street,
Suite 10, Toronto M4Y 1Y4, Ont.

Seminar
The schedule for the CFE editing seminar has been laid out as follows:

Saturday, Aug. 17 9 to noon Discussion of Feature Editing
1to4 p.m. Syncing Rushes — practical session
Sunday, Aug. 18 9 to noon Discussion of Drama editing
lto4p.m. Discussion of commercial and documentary editing
Monday to Thursday, Aug 19 to 22 7 to 10 p.m. Practical sessions — editing
Saturday, Aug. 24 9 to noon Discussion of sound editing
1 to 4 p.m. Practical — sound editing
Sunday, Aug. 25 9 to noon Practical — sound editing
1 to 4 p.m. Practical — discussion and clean up
Monday, Aug. 26 7 to 10 p.m. __ Discussion — negative cutting
Tuesday, Aug. 27 7 to 10 p.m. Tour — Optical House
Wednesday, Aug. 28 7 to 10 p.m. Tour — Lab
Thursday, Aug. 29 7 to 10 p.m. Mix.

Discussions and practical sessions will be held at the Photographic Arts Department of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, 122 Bond Street,
Toronto. The Optical House Tour will take place at Film Opticals, 410 Adelaide St. W., the Lab is Quinn Laboratories Ltd., 380
Adelaide St. W., and the Mix will be held at Mirrophonic, 409 King St. W.

Don Shebib and Tony Lower will be on hand for the feature discussion to show and talk about “Between Friends”. Award winning
editors, Eric Wrate, Kit Hood, and John Watson will show examples of their work in drama, commercials, and documentary films,
respectively.

The people who have registered to date will be contacted for confirmation by Audrey Currie during the first two weeks in August. If
there are any questions please call Annette Tilden at 924-8847.

We still have room for a few more people.

Cinema Canada 69

COUNCIL OF
CANADIAN

FILITIMIAKERS

Just at the time when everybody should
be out shooting his or her movie, film-
makers are sitting around wondering
what will happen next. There still has
been only one major feature shot in
English Canada this year. A few other
lower budget ones are being made, out
of absolute determination,

But things look bleak. And prospects
for change are not immediate either at
the provincial or the federal levels.

Some notes of mid summer activity:

On June 5th, Peter Pearson, as Chair-
man of the Council presented the fol-
lowing Viewpoint on CBC after the
news:

John F. Bassett, football entrepreneur,
and John F. Bassett movie mogul, are
closing up their shops in Canada — both
on account of Canadian content.

The football entrepreneur can’t oper-
ate with it.

The movie mogul can’t operate with-
out it.

For a couple of years, Canadian
movie moguls were able to operate here.
Rowdyman, Mon Oncle Antoine,
Wedding in White, Kamouraska, The
Pyx, Paperback Hero, and most re-
cently, Duddy Kravitz. Ten or fifteen
hits in Quebec, seven or eight in English
Canada. Not bad for a country starting
from a deadstart, some sixty years after
everybody else.

Unfortunately, most of the above
films were financed through a tax loop-
hole, a kind of corporate welfare
bummery — and the Department of
National Revenue said — no more boys.
Production ground to a halt as the word
got round.

Thirteen major films in 1972, six last
year. One so far in 1974. It’s one of
those arithmetic progressions that gives

70 Cinema Canada

film people a wobbly sense of insecur-
ity.

What went wrong? Well, it was never
right in the first place. The Canadian
Film Development Corporation, known
hereafter as the CFDC was set up in the
hope that a little pump priming would
encourage private investment.

Some hope.

The multinational consortiums, with
their integrated financing, production,
distribution and exhibition have their
own thing going — and they are defin-
itely not interested in Canadian movies.
Canada, after all, is their second best
market. Hollywood films carted $40
million out of here last year. And talk
like good corporate citizenry doesn’t
really wash in head office.

To be fair, George Destounis of Fam-
ous Players has tried. Over the years he’s
invested well over a million bucks.

The Liberal government has also
tried. They have invested some $15
million of taxpayers money in films to
date. In the next couple of weeks, Sec-
retary of State, Hugh Faulkner will be
trundling out his Second Phase of the
Federal Film Policy. One more plank in
the Liberal platform. But I doubt that
will help either.

Why? Well basically the system
doesn’t work. The financing system
doesn’t work, the distribution system
doesn’t work, the exhibition system
doesn’t work. For Canadians or for
Canadian films.

Except for the United States and
Canada, every industrial nation protects
its domestic cinema — quotas, blocked
funds, box office taxes, incentives.
Canada, because the theatres are under
provincial jurisdiction, has none of these
aids.

We can all blame Sir John A. Mac-
donald for this mess. Well, not exactly
John A. but the BNA act — which gives
jurisdiction over property, thus theatres

— to the provinces.

Unfortunately, neither the Big Blue
Machine in Ontario, nor the Soft Pink
one in British Columbia — the two
principal markets, have shown the
slightest interest in anything other than
their tax receipts.

When John F. Bassett was a movie
mogul, he was commissioned by the
Ontario government to provide some
solutions. That excellent report, sug-
gesting quotas, (eight weeks per theatre
every two years) was quietly tucked
away as a dust collector, and the
Ontario government moved stalwartly
on to give lip service to some other
cause.

It’s ironic, because the provinces
have been the flag wavers, by and large.
The nationalists in Quebec, the socialists
in the west. Even Premier Davis, when
occasion demands, can unfurl a mean
maple leaf. So with scant production
foreseeable this year, the CFDC sits
with a wad of a million and a half to
invest in English production and few
takers.

But rather than knock heads with the
distributors and exhibitors, rather than
nail the provinces for their obligations,
the CFDC is trying to get its act
changed so that it can, and I quote:

invest in short films, documentaries,
TV commercials, TV movies and the
like. Maybe even pilots for TV series.

Let’s take our money and go else-
where, Fund TV series, fund TV com-
mercials.

TV Commercials, indeed.

I can see it now. After a happy
minute of “‘Things go better with coke’,
we will then see the famous credit:
PRODUCED WITH THE ASSISTANCE
OF THE CANADIAN FILM DEVELOP-
MENT CORPORATION.

1. Toronto Star, Entertainment Section
May 25, 1974.

Box 1003, Station A,
Toronto M5W 1G5

That Viewpoint arose out of a comment
Michael Spencer passed on to Sid Adil-
man in the Toronto Star May 25, 1974:

The filmmaker of the 70’s is a versa-
tile guy. I want to help these guys
out, by aiding them to make short
films, documentaries, TV commer-
cials, TV movies and the like. Maybe
even pilots for TV series.

Michael Spencer is at it again.

On November 22, 1973, he outlined
this scheme for changing the CFDC’s
mandate in great detail before the Ad-
visory Committee to the CFDC in
Ottawa. All the film organizations,
English and French were there. The
subject was debated for more than three
hours.

At the finish, Gratien Gélinas took a
vote of the organizations to see who
approved of the change in policy. The
first vote was who approved of the
CFDC changing its mandate to allow for
the production of short theatrical films.
The vote was 14 to 4 in favour of this
policy.

The second vote concerned the
CFDC expanding its mandate to include
the financing of television series, tele-
vision pilots, commercials, videotape,
live production and the like. The vote
was 14 to 4 against such a policy.

So here is Michael Spencer, true
democrat that he is, expanding his man-
date.

The CCFM has acquired information
indicating that Spencer and the CFDC
have gone to the Secretary of State with
precisely this proposition. Against the
overwhelming opposition of the indus-
try spokesmen. We have further indi-
cation that the Secretary of State is
thinking of accepting it.

Within the next month, the CCFM
plans to draft a paper outlining in great
detail, the perils of such reckless ven-
tures, and we will publish the text here
in this spacee

SOCETY OF

FILIVIIYIAKERS

oy

P.O. Box 1118, Place D’Armes Station Montreal, Quebec H2Y 3J6

The Society of Film Makers is
made up of professional film makers
in Canada and is a member of the
following associations: The Canadian
Conference of the Arts, The Cana-
dian Broadcasting League, the Cana-

dian Film Awards, The Canadian
Film Development Corporation. The
Society of Film Makers is not a guild
or a union, but is the organization
made up of film professionals from
all disciplines, training, and vocation.

Following a concensus of the Executive,
the membership of the Society of Film
Makers is at the present time being
asked to voice their decision on a consti-
tutional amendment which, if passed,
would increase the term of each Execu-
tive from one to two years, thus elimin-
ating the need for annual elections. It
was generally felt that we seemed to be
in a near-constant state of elections and
that at least a two-year mandate is
necessary for any Executive to accom-
plish meaningful or longer range tasks.
Each member should have received in-
structions and a ballot for recording his
vote by mail, and we urge each member
who has not done so to mail back his or
her completed ballot as soon as possible.

Members are reminded that member-
ship to the SFM includes free subscrip-
tions to the magazines Cinema Canada
and Take One. Any member who has
not been receiving issues should contact
their nearest SFM Executive member.

The next SFM Family Night will take
place on August 2nd, in the Montreal
region. Members will be advised on the
family feature film to be shown, plus
details on place and time later in July
by mail.

SFM Director Wally Gentleman has
been very active this summer. After
completing the filming of three tele-
vision commercials for Montreal’s
Disada Productions, he flew to Rome to
begin work on an upcoming Italian fea-
ture. Our Secretary-Treasurer, Peter
Benison, has been kept busy with spon-
sored films, most recently in Vancouver.
Our Assistant Secretary-Treasurer,
Pierre Decelles, has been working on
principal animation for the cartoon
Television Special, ““Winnie Witch and
the Giant Potato” at Disada Produc-
tions. SFM member Elias Cicvak is cur-
rently writing a screenplay based on his
novel “The Sun Rises in the Evening”’.

The SFM deplores the cancellation of
this year’s Canadian Film Awards. The
Awards took up the lion’sshareof exter-
nal SFM activity last year, both in terms
of time and funds. Problems could have
been ironed out, we feel, and we intend
to make a full disclosure of our views in
a report this summer to our membership
and to the other Executive Members of
the Canadian Film Awards.

We wish to remind members that we
are seeking news of their professional
activities for publication in this maga-
zine and also in mailings to members.

Memberships are now being accepted
for the 1974-1975 season. Applications
for membership to the SFM are avail-
able from the Society of Film Makers,
P.O. Box 1118 Place D’Armes Station,
Montreal, Québec, H2Y 3J6.

Memberships for a one-year period
which entitles each member in good
standing to all privileges, and to sub-
scriptions to Cinema Canada and Take
One are still available at $15.00 per
year. Persons who have never been an
SFM member in addition pay a once-in-
a-lifetime initiation fee of $10.00e

Cinema Canada 71

DIRECTORS
GUILD OF

CANADA

Suite 815, 22 Front St. W., Toronto 116 Ontario (416) 364-0122

On the current production scene, Gab-
riele Films rolled cameras in late July on
Gabriele with AL WAXMAN directing.
DEANNE JUDSON is handling the
production manager chores, with BILL
ZBOROWSKY and IAN MCDOUGALL
assistant directors. LEON MARR is
Trainee on this one. — POLICE SUR-
GEON filming is well underway in
Toronto with MARILYN STONE-
HOUSE the p.m., TONY LUCIBELLO
and GARY FLANAGAN alternating
first a.d’s, and JOHN RYAN handling
the second A.D. post. BILL COR-
CORAN is the Trainee on this one.
PETER CARTER has been signed to
direct 10 episodes, with STAN OLSEN,
GERRY MAYER and JOHN LUCAS
also slated to direct episodes. — TIM
ROUSE, GORD ROBINSON and DAVE
ROBERTSON working the SALTY
series being shot in Nassau for Vision IV
Productions. — SEARCH, to be pro-
duced by TONY KRAMWREITHER, is
now slated for a September start. —
THE FURY PLOT, a CFDC Special
Investment project, started production
in late July. JOHN ECKERT and FRED
FELDMAN working this one. — AL-
LAN KING, DON BUCHSBAUM and
PHIL MCPHEDRAN wrapping RED
EMMA for CBC. — JULIUS KOHANYI
hard at work putting together the
Canadian Film Series for CBC. —- WALT
DISNEY will be shooting a movie for
television in Calgary in August. LES
KIMBER will be handling the p.m. post
with MARTIN WALTERS out of Van-
couver as A.D. Balance of crew still
t.b.a. — BOB LINNELL and FRAN
ROSATI hard at work on the latest
Trevor Wallace film. — BRIAN WALK-
ER, TONY THATCHER, RENE BON-
NIERE, DON BROUGH, et al, working

72 Cinema Canada

or prepping CBC shoots. — AL SIM-
MONDS, GIL NOVIS, JACK GOOD-
FORD, GARY LEAROYD, PETER
GERRETSEN, GRAHAM ORWIN,
RAY ARSENAULT, RON ZACKA-
RUK, BOB SCHULZ, COLIN SMITH,
PAUL SCHULTZ, DON WILDER,
DAVE CHARLES, SAM JEPHCOTT,
CHRIS DALTON, PETER O’BRIAN, et
al, working commercial shoots. — CBS
will be shooting a Movie of the Week
and is now crewing. — A number of
additional projects are being discussed
with details still to be finalized.

ON THE AGENCY SCENE — Foster
Advertising of Toronto has picked up
the $600,000 account of CIL from
Needham, Harper and Steers. — Gerry
Kane has been named Vice President
and Director of Creative Services at
MacLaren Advertising. — Doug Bedard
and Karl Schroeter have been named
account executive at McCann-Erickson.
— Spitzer Mills and Bates, Montreal, has
picked up the $500,000 account of
Hitachi Sales Corporation, Montreal,
from Harold M. Schneider.

The Rose Magwood Productions, Cana-
dian operations, have been purchased by
its executive producer and_ general
manager, John Bilney who joined the
company three years ago. The purchase
also included the operations of Print
Service International.

FESTIVALS — The Fourth Interna-
tional Festival of Cinema in 16mm will
be held in Montreal October 22 - 27,

1974. Films produced after October,
1972, and not previously shown in
Canada are eligible. Completed entry
forms due by September Ist. Entry
forms available from Festival’s Office,
2026 Ontario East, Montreal 133,
Quebec.

18th Annual San Francisco Interna-
tional Film Festival, October 16 - 27,
1974. Correspondence, films, and entry
material obtained from or addressed to:
Competition Division, San Francisco
International Film Festival, 1409 Bush
Street, San Francisco, California 94109.
16mm only.

2nd International Oceanic Film Festival,
Bordeaux, France, October 6, 1974.
Open to films produced after 1968,
35mm, 16mm or super 8mm. Entry
forms due by July 31, 1974. Available
from Festivals Office in Ottawa.

CRTC HEARINGS IN OTTAWA to
discuss Canadian Production of Com-
mercials, originally scheduled for June
4th, were postponed until October 8,
1974,

A brief has been filed with the CRTC

and a delegation of directors will be
attending the hearings.

— Evelyn McCartney

Baltazar

Photo:

TORONTO

FILIVIMIAKERS

cO-OP

406 Jarvis Street, Toronto

Keith Lock shooting in the basement of 406
Jarvis

Our eye-witness report this month
includes a dazzling array of recent
accomplishments and future plans un-
earthed since the last issue of fabu-

lous Cinema Canada. We _ haven’t
been just sitting on our HANDS
around here, you know.

SCREENINGS are every Sunday

night at 8:00 p.m., they are begin-
ning to be well-attended and discus-
sion inspiring events wherein co-op
members’ films are shown and fine
independent work is studied.

EQUIPMENT AND __ DISCOUNTS.
Well, we’re really APPLYING our-
selves to the task of uncovering
friendly and/or sympathetic equip-
ment and production houses to help
out with less expensive film produc-

tion. So far, things are coming
along.
SCRIPT LIBRARY. By this time

next year, we hope to have collected
the largest library of both produced
and not yet produced scripts in Can-
ada. The Canadian Film Institute has
been kind enough to agree to absorb
the cost of printing, and several of
the large producers have given the
go ahead to duplicate their scripts.

SEMINARS will take place every
Monday night at 8 p.m., bringing in
guest speakers from all areas of the
Canadian film industry. All kinds of
topics. Sessions taped for future lis-
tening pleasure, too.

WORKSHOPS | going like wildfire,
you know, once again in _ progress
and, for a modest price, teaching

people to edit, light, record and mix

sound, shoot film, direct or produce
features, write scripts or write a
budget. Wonderful. Another - series

scheduled for the fall.

Jim Anderson — starring in his own film

Carol Betts (center) teaching the Camera
Workshop

OFFICE. A_ swell place to work
now, with various renovations, im-
proved efficiency, paid bills, etc.

This is where you can pick up a
copy of RUSHES if ya wanna, our
little newspaper that lists film festi-
vals, films-in-the-works at the co-op,
and all that. We also are working on
lists of information, like directors,
composers, lighting and sound peo-
ple, for those trying to put a crew
together. Membership is _ getting
pretty vast, we have to think of
some way to organize a sort of hier-
archy of members, so that those
who treat the co-op like a co-op
(put time into it for what they get
out of it) would reap the fruits, as
it were.

WELL, what more say?

Everything’s finee

can we

Cinema Canada 73

FILMY REVIEWS

Rien Qu’un
Petit Chanson D’ Amour

The National Film Board, a microcosm
of the country it represents, is split
down the belly button between French
and English. Even in the cafeteria at
noon, tables are divided into the red and
the blue and perhaps the only contact
between the two cultures occurs in the
washrooms waiting for a free towel
dispenser.

One of the more amusing manifesta-
tions of this xenophobia is in the fact
that there are two animation depart-
ments at the Film Board; each with
separate autonomy and_ distinctive
styles; located at opposite ends of the
huge building and light years apart in
sensibility. A sad consequence of this
split is that while the McLarens and
Ryan Larkins and Don Ariolis get
widespread and well deserved publicity,
not much is known about their franco-
phone counterparts. A case in point is
the work of Vivienne Elnécavé and her
recently completed film Rien Qu’un
Petit Chanson D’Amour, (Just a Little
Love Song). This particular love song is
drawn in a black and white style
reminiscent of the Krazy Kat cartoons
of the thirties but it is not a cute or
pretty or colourful animated film. Using
what must be an animated equivalent of
psychoanalytical free association, the
film takes us on a ten minute odyssey
through the terror and pain of love;
from an infant’s desperate attempts at
closeness with its parents to an adult’s
relationship with a cruel and isolating
world.

The film begins innocuously enough
with a rocking chair oscillating to the
country sound of a five-string banjo.
When the rocking chair metamorphoses
into a man, we are not surprised. So far
it just looks like good animation. But
then this first level of reality is shattered
as the arms of the rocking-chair-man
smash through a wall and pull out a
struggling bird. It is like some form of
raw energy has been pulled up from the
unconscious. Later in the film, the bird
becomes a child, a child who is killed by
its parents, its chest split open by a
dagger, as we go deeper into the chest
and are plunged into a deeper level of
the unconscious. The pulsating heart
metamorphoses into a man crucified by
a nail to the relentless rhythm of a
flamenco. The film now becomes a
dance, perhaps one of the most painful
dances ever choreographed on film. The
man becomes two and then four. The

74 Cinema Canada

dancers swallow each other, regurgitate
the meal, come together and then split
into four. The splitting and fusion
continue. A dancer removes the heart of
his partner through the mouth and the
heart splits and reveals two more
dancers. The action becomes faster and
faster and the process continues into a
blinding infinite regress of broken
hearts.

Searching for Vivienne Elnécavé’s
predecessors, one does not think of
Disney or McLaren. The names which
come to mind are Dali, Bufuel and
Edgar Allan Poe. She uses the medium
not just on the level of cartoon or
moving abstraction but, through the
metamorphosing of shapes and personae,
as a reflection of what is going on deep
in the subconscious. It is a personal
statement and yet universal enough to
trigger powerful emotional reaction,
sometimes attraction, sometimes revul-
sion but with the universality of one’s
own dreams.

Ronald H. Blumer

Coming Home

The concept of applying use of media to
an intense, personal situation is not
brand new, just new enough to make
further attempts in the area interesting
to the viewer. Allan King’s A Married
Couple, and the PBS Series An
American Family, each demonstrated
the technique and its possibilities.
Coming Home works on many levels as
a tool for improving the difficult
relationships inside this particular film,
and the film itself is helping others to
gain insight and understanding in their
own family relationships.

Bill Reid left a Ph.D. programme
when he realized that academia would
teach him no more about what he felt
were the important aspects of life. He
started off as a production assistant at
the NFB and while there, had access to
a Portapak video tape outfit. That outfit
accompanied him on a trip home to
Sarnia where he again found himself
caught up in his unpleasant relationship
with his family, specifically his father.

The Portapak recorded a family argu-
ment of some 20 minutes duration, and
that tape sparked the idea for a more
detailed film project that would capture
the family in its natural state, and work
as a tool to assist in settling its long-
established differences.

Photo: Baltazar

Bill Reid

Bill’s father is the Chrysler dealer in
Sarnia. He built his business from the
zround up and has obviously had hopes
that one of his sons would carry it on
for him. Neither Bill nor his younger
brother is inclined in that direction. The
father is also upset with the fact that
Bill wears his hair long, and dresses in
blue jeans. This problem of Bill’s ap-
pearance is the major stumbling block,
it seems, to any kind of communication
between Father and Son. Bill asks why
his father cannot talk to him as an
equal; in fact, can not talk to him as a
human being, and rather than discuss
the point, a monologue begins on how
Bill’s looks make his father ashamed (or
words to that effect).

The mother is caught in the middle
of the situation, and can be understand-
ing of both viewpoints. Above all, she is
mediator of the dispute and the force
moving to keep both men from shutting
off the whole process of communica-
tion.

The younger brother at 21 is just
coming into the problem of feeling that
he cannot relate to his parents. He
expresses the thought that he feels a
conflict in not being able to carry on
the same behaviour in the company of
his friends as in the company of his
parents. This duality is forming into his
own identity crisis.

As an 84 minute documentary, the
film does not attempt to solve the prob-
lems of the Reid Family. Rather it
documents the group in discussion and
attempts to be as unobtrusive as pos-
sible. The only way that Mr. Reid would
consent to the experiment was for Bill
to promise to get a haircut, and since
that seemed to be the central pivot of

the argument, Bill felt the concession to
be part of the process. It was, of course,
not the magic key, and the father’s
reaction was even less than it might have
been. But the film covers some ten days
of personal interaction, and when it’s
over, there is very little improvement in
the family’s situation.

The film stands as a statement of the
situation as it began, and the various
attempts to break down barriers to com-
munication at conversations over meals
and at less formal times as well. It has
been working very well as a conver-
sation generator at meetings of family
counselling groups and the like. This
seems to be its function to others, in
letting them see how their own prob-
lems look as they happen in other fam-
ilies. For the Reid family there were
positive results to the project, but these
did not come about until after they saw
the film. The first screening brought no
reaction from them. No comments, and
no attempts at reconciliation. Months
later, at a second screening, things did
begin to happen, and the overview
which the film gives, on an intense
personal level, did allow a base for
discussion. Apparently, with the passage
of time and considerable discussion of
the events in the film, many of the
Reids’ family problems have been suc-
cessfully worked out.

Reid sees film as a tool which, ap-
plied to sociological reality, can work to
help give a view of the situation that
will help both those directly involved
and others who watch the study. It has
worked in this situation and there is no
reason why it shouldn’t work in others.
As the kind of tool that is useful in
therapeutic counselling, it is an indis-

Blumer, Kirshenbaum , Edwards, Fothergill , Hartt

putable success.

There are elements in each character
of the drama that allows some form of
identification for each member of the
audience. The sad realities of the film
blended with the lighter moments in-
volving small-scale successes in the on-
going battle make the film an enjoyable
experience, especially for a larger aud-
ience that usually sees such material on
TV, in smaller groups.

Harris Kirshenbaum

Diary of a Sinner

Comment from Iain Ewing, 29 year old
producer of successful skinflick Diary of
a Sinner:

“If I ever go to Hell what the Devil’s
going to make me do is look at that
film for one thousand years.”

... Ewing.

Iain Ewing is absolutely determined to
make movies. And in fact he has been
making them, learning the craft, the art,
and even the businesslike aspects of the
trade, ever since he made his first film,
Picaro, an attractive 27 minute short in
1966 while at McMaster.

But Picaro, though a pleasing little
film, never got any distribution and
neither did his next film, Kill, a conver-
sational off-beat work involving a dis-
gruntled young man who’d like to kill
his father. Despite some grotesque and
bizarre suggestions which Ewing says a
college audience really digs, the film is
basically philosophical and totally non-
commercial.

One of the major accomplishments
of this film was simply the process of
getting it made. With a borrowed $500
and several thousand feet of profes-
sionally unusable film stock that had
spent five years in the Arctic, and with
bargain rentals from Janet Good of the
Canadian Motion Picture Equipment
Rentals on Granby, and owing money
everywhere, getting everything done on
credit, and editing the film while at
UCLA, he finally got it made. It repre-
sented some $1500 in hard cash and a
lot of hard work.

Ewing’s next film was somewhat
shorter and more successful. Called A
Short Film it was a three minute stu-
dent exercise at UCLA which his pro-
fessor termed “perfect.” Twenty-three
at the time, Ewing decided after two
semesters at the famous University of

Cinema Canada 75

California at Los Angeles film school
(where Don Shebib also studied) that he
had no need for a degree and it was time
to get to work.

Back in Canada he made Eat
Anything, a film he loved making but
found the reception to be “a real dis-
appointment.” “It’s a good film,’ he
says, ‘“‘a really beautiful honest film
about human beings.’’ Made in 1970 it
presents about 25 people he really liked,
doing natural things like playing the
guitar or talking about their marriage,
interspersed with Toronto shots and
concluded with comments they make
about their feelings about God. The
CBC turned the film down.

This film is with his others at the
Canadian Filmmakers Distribution
Centre waiting for viewers. Ewing
couldn’t care less about how much
money he makes on it, but he would
like people to see it.

Ewing continued to accumulate ex-
perience. He worked on David Sector’s
The Offering, Don Shebib’s Goin’ Down
the Road, starred in David Cronenberg’s
Stereo and Crimes of the Future, acted
and sang his own music in Clarke
Mackey’s The Only Thing You Know,
worked on a film in India as a sound-
man, and returned to photograph his
sister, Judy Steed’s, film It’s Going to
Be All Right, and make a 20 minute
short for the CBC Bo Diddley’s Back in
Town, (of which they ran seven minutes
one Weekday).

And still he couldn’t get a feature
film underway or convince the CFDC to
part with some of the $120,000 he
needed to produce his love-story script.

So he decided to make a skinflick.

He found a friend who agreed to foot
$4000 for film stock, and a real estate
entrepreneur who finally invested some
$20,000. And with director Ed Hunt,
another filmmaker whose heart wasn’t
really in the filmflesh business, Diary of
a Sinner was shot right on schedule in
13 days last summer at Kew Beach and
a rented Toronto house with a total
budget of $65,000 of which only
$23,000 cash was actually spent.

The deferrals and debts will be
cleaned up if the film makes money.
Danton distributor’s Dan Weinzweig
thinks they may make enough right in
Canada to break even, and has already
confirmed bookings for Hamilton,
Oshawa, London, Winnipeg, a drive-in
chain and Montreal in the fall.

So now that producer Iain Ewing and
director Ed Hunt have a success with
Diary of a Sinner will they do much
more than establish good credit ratings
for future films with it?

Not likely. Intrinsically the film is
weak, and as Ewing modestly admits,
“has a lot of flaws due to inexper-
ience and the conditions under which it

76 Cinema Canada

Ra. i aOR NS

Scene from “Diary of a Sinner”’

was made.” Oddly enough, though the
story line is a far different thing, the
virtues and weaknesses in Diary of a
Sinner are similar to those in Ewing’s
early Picaro. Again there are sequences
that seem strangely out of place, and
swift style shifts in which disturbingly
honest revealing scenes are interspersed
with unreal and fantastical episodes too
suddenly. It continues to suggest a po-
tential for something better.

In the Diary at one point two girls
talk frankly about their feelings about
death and suicide, while the pimp and
ex-priest wait in the park outside impat-
ient with evil intentions. The girls,
photographed and lit with spectacular
beauty by Jock Brandis, seem to be an
insert from some other, fascinating film.

The audience of carefully distanced
single males watching the film when I
attended, seemed engrossed and satis-
fied. But what they saw was innocence
itself compared to the fare the serious
film buff finds in every second film.

For instance in a shower sequence
two couples slather soap on each other
as enthusiastically as ten year olds, giv-
ing the scene a wholesome playfulness
that is a far cry from the sensuous
lathering scene in Teshigahara’s Woman
in the Dunes. Ewing mentioned that the
censors cut about five minutes. They
cut the end of the shower scene for
example though he couldn’t see why,
since the end was the same as the

beginning. ‘Maybe,’ he _ suggested,
“they just felt, ‘That’s enough of
that!*=*

Anyhow, any skinflick in which a
jaded nearly 30 pimp (played by Ewing)
in confessing to his lusty ex-priest pal
begins with, ‘I love Union Station’,
can’t be all bad. And the shots of the
station, the city, the lake, and the Kew
Beach district as well as the girls and the
beautiful pink-glowing body of pro-
fessional Calla Bianca doing a gorgeous
strip, keep the visuals always interesting.

To top it all, Bo Diddley, a friend of
Ewing’s, made music, and the music is
fine.

—Natalie Edwards

Diary of a Sinner

Sophisticated audiences have many de-
fences against the moral appeal of a
work of art. Popular audiences, on the
other hand, are suspicious of artistic
pretentiousness. So the artist with an
urgent moral vision of the world is
forced to choose between artistry,
which will alienate the vulgar, and mor-
ality, which will be wasted on the cul-
tured. Faced with this dilemma, writer-
actor-producer Iain Ewing and his faith-
ful director Ed Hunt have chosen to
preserve the integrity of their moral
vision and to risk neglect by the art-
house crowd. Like a Salvation Army
band, they play a simple tune for simple
ears. Following Pleasure Palace, a drama
of redemptive love in the sordid under-
world of nude modelling, their second
film, entitled Diary of a Sinner, opened
recently at the Coronet Theatre on
Yonge Street.

The simple story, told in a series of
abruptly disconnected episodes, con-
cerns a suicide pact forced upon a lone-
ly and sex-starved ex-priest (Tom) by
his debaunched but world-weary fellow
roomer (Dave). Perceiving in Tom the
death wish that lurks in all humanity,
Dave (played by Iain Ewing himself)
proposes a week of unbridled sexual
licence, to be followed by the suicide of
whichever one of them the toss of a
coin shall decide. Tom consents and
asks to wallow in sex until he is sick of
it. And wallow they do, in every beastly
vice that Toronto can offer, from the
body-rub parlours of Yonge St. to Disci-
pline and Bondage in a basement in
North Rosedale. But before the week is
up Tom has grown weary of the fruitless
quest for self-abandonment in pleasure.
Out of his nausea and chagrin he is
entranced by the image of Simone, a
pure and lovely woman in the thrall of
an evil heroin pusher and abattoir oper-
ator. To win her love he offers to kill
this monster, in which undertaking Dave
readily assists, since his own true love
(Joan) was debauched by the very same
man. None the less, Dave still demands
fulfillment of the pact. Proving his man-
hood to the newly-won Simone, Tom
accepts the challenge. Daye loses the
toss and promptly plunges into the pol-
luted waters of Lake Ontario.

Regarded as a low-mimetic fiction,
Diary of a Sinner might appear some-
what implausible in conception and
more than a little crude in execution.
But such a view would fail to recognize
the archetypal skeleton concealed in the

sagging flesh. Only in form and style is
Diary a cheap and rather vacuous soft-
core porno flick. In its essence it can be
seen as a profound moral fable on one
of the central themes in Western art: the
struggle of the soul of Man against the
downward pull of evil and annihilation.
Dostoievskian in its insight into the
workings of a nihilistic soul, Diary is an
urgently contemporary rehandling of
the Faust theme. If Iain Ewing’s Dave is
a chaotically incoherent character — jo-
vial, sinister, chivalrous, harsh, giggly,
romantic, cynical, tit-crazy — it is be-
cause he embodies the very essence of
Chaos itself. Disintegrated by nihilism
and satiety, he is incarnate Evil, offering
nothing but oblivion and death.

Defying the superficial conventions
that represent Evil as hideous and in-
human, Iain Ewing shows us the pathos
of a soul whose fall into the void has
been from a height of clear idealism.
There is pathos in his story of Joan, the
girl enslaved by the heroin pusher, and
pathos in his thwarted desire to be a
rock singer, the brightest of them all.
Like Lucifer, he was once a bright angel,
and in his fallen state, seeking to put the
cold touch of nihilism and death upon
other souls, there is manifest self-hatred.
As he says, in a line that captures the
lean economy of the film’s dialogue: “I
never loved Joan; it was only a game.”
His vindictive hatred of woman, and of
all idealism, is the face of idealism gone
sour. As he offers to Tom the dismal
satisfactions of his own infernal exist-
ence, which Tom at first perceives as
paradise, we can almost hear him say,
with Marlowe’s Mephistophilis, “Why
this is Hell, nor am I out of it!”

It is a mark of Ewing’s daring intui-
tion that his characterization of Evil
goes so far as to encompass the grotes-
quely comic. Traditionally of course, sin
is indeed absurd, a travesty of true
humanity made in God’s image. While
Tom’s erotic encounters lead upward to
Love with the pure Simone, Iain’s gross
couplings touch bottom when he is as-
saulted in a basement by lady-wrestlers
in Viking costumes. Squawking feebly
for help, he is held down and lashed on
his chubby pink buttocks — an image of
infantile impotence. Evil is overcome by
being rendered ludicrous.

Playing opposite this suburban Satan,
Tom Celli gradually invests the pro-
tagonist with spiritual dignity and moral
grandeur. As an ex-priest he embodies
the thwarted desire for a transcendent
faith, at once vulnerable to Iain’s delu-
sive promise of erotic bliss, and hungry
for a higher satisfaction. Out of the dark
night of the soul in which the Tempter
has found him, there comes the re-
awakening of the spirit. He commun-
icates to Iain his insight that ‘‘Mater-
ialism is the religion of modern man’’,
and begins to yearn for less barren

gratifications. He talks derisively of
Catholicism, agrees to hear Iain’s ‘‘con-
fession”, and even engages in a rather
perfunctory Black Mass at Iain’s sugges-
tion. Yet we can see that, even as he
parodies his priestly function, he is re-
covering his conviction of its meaning.
At the same time, Iain, while he initiates
these mockeries of faith, implicitly
acknowledges its power. The gamble for
Tom’s soul has become the harrowing of
what remains of his own. The heart of
the film is the sequence following the
Black Mass: in a surreal fantasia (in
tinted monochrome) Iain nails down the
lid of a coffin over Tom — an image
expressive of the essentially annihilating
nature of his patronage.

"

Iain Ewing and Tom Celli

But the vestiges of Iain’s humanity
continue to compete with his Despair
(the sin for which there is no for-
giveness). In spite of himself, and in
memory of his love for Joan, he helps
Tom to vanquish the beast who has
imprisoned Simone. Only after learning
of Joan’s death does his hatred for life
cause him to demand fulfillment of the
pact that will result in Tom’s, or his
own destruction. He has performed a
saving act in assisting Tom to the real-
ization of a redeeming love. But for him
there is no salvation. The filthy waters,
to which he has earlier compared his
soul, close over him.

The vision of modern life, or more
particularly of Toronto life, displayed in
Diary of a Sinner is melancholy indeed.
The spirit that animates the screenplay
is a bleakly tragic one. For although the
plot depicts the redemption of a soul by
Love for spiritual desolation, the char-
acter with whom the author has chosen
to identify cannot find redemption for
himself. Indeed, it is just his diseased
vision of a loveless, depraved, vicious
world which Tom needs to be rescued
from. In other words, Diary of a Sinner
is a fantasy in which lain Ewing de-
stroys himself in order to save the inno-

cence which his own nihilism endangers.
A sacrificial act of the imagination, it is
a Faust story written by one of the
damned who retains enough love for his
former brethren, for his unfallen self, to
commit suicide rather than to spread
damnation further. Iain Ewing is a char-
acter out of Graham Greene, a saint
who volunteers for Hell.

Robert Fothergill

Love at First Sight

She takes one look and BAM — it’s love
at first sight. But what is wrong with
Dick and why does he call himself Roy,
and in what way is he disabled?

By the time you know, the belated
title has told you that Love at First
Sight is a film by Rex Bromfield starring
Valeri Bromfield and Dan Akroyd, and
you can settle back for a cheerful half-
hour with one of the most human,
ordinary, funny and engaging Canadian
couples ever: Roy and Shirley.

She’s like the essence of Judy Holli-
day. One of those crazy dames who
walk past the gates of hell, chewing
bubble gum and reading aloud from a
tourist guide. Dense but delightful.

And he’s tall, dark, and in Shirley’s
opinion, obviously handsome, but with
a difference: he has a disability. It’s the
kind of thing that in the hands of
playwright David French creates a dia-
tribe, but blooming under Bromfield’s
touch, only accentuates the vulnerable,
incomplete qualities of man. Everyone
has some flaw. But if you’re in love, like
Shirley, you hardly even notice.

Love is blind. And so is Roy.

Did you automatically flinch? Not to
worry. Bromfield isn’t out to create
false heroics, sloppy sentimentality or
to moralize. Roy’s blindness doesn’t
make him tragic or incapable. Shirley
doesn’t give a hoot, not that much fazes
Shirley anyway. And as Bromfield sets
up the story so that you don’t have to
feel pity or concern, you are able to
nervously enjoy the very human pre-
dicaments this couple get into on their
visit to Niagara Falls.

For instance: While Shirley waits im-
patiently in the car, Roy enters a thin
woods to relieve himself out of sight of
the road.

“Can you see me?” he calls.

With the exasperation that indicates
this has been going on some time, she
answers, ‘‘Yes.”’

After awhile he calls again, ““Can you

‘see me now?”’

“Yes! Go further!” she calls.

Finally, his voice again: ““Now can
you see me?”

“No. Roy! Where are you?” she
panics, realizing neither of them know.

This scene finally melted even a
sophisticated Cannes audience this year.
As Bromfield exclaimed with happy
relief: “It really broke them up.”

Cinema Canada 77

Bromfield’s sense of humour is so
rare nowadays one feels like capturing it
under glass. But film will do. Subtle,
understated, it is based on character,
not silly situations. It is, in fact, the
gentle humour formed of an attitude to
life, of a genial acceptance of the human
condition and the lovable qualities of
the human’s ridiculous, idiosyncratic na-
ture.

It is also the humour of survival, of
the Good Soldier Schweik and Buster
Keaton and of the lovely crazy com-
edies of the thirties. Maybe it’s just in
time!

To make this type of comedy work,
the acting must be nearly perfect. And I
think it is. Shirley is played wonderfully
by Valeri Bromfield, the director’s
sister, she was part of the old Second
City troupe and is now a regular per-
former on the Bobbie Gentry Variety
Show. And Ray is an observant and
sensitive portrayal by Dan Akroyd who
can be seen here in Toronto with the
present Second City group at the Fire-
hall Restaurant, 110 Lombard St.

The characters are both believable
and amusing. Facial expressions and
reactions do not seem to be created for
the benefit of audience but rise natur-
ally from the incidents of the plot and
the basis of the character. Seemingly
unperformed, the roles distill the essence
of those recognizable human foibles
that make us love each other and forgive
ourselves.

When this works, true comic art is
created. Rare as it is wonderful, any
director illustrating an ability to pro-
duce it should be hung with bells and
fed delectable things every hour on the
hour by a happy public.

Bromfield’s film background includes
a tiny comedy I Am Chinese made in
1966 and shown at Cinecity; many CBC
fillers and shorts, those on artists like
Pachter, Redinger, Zelenek and Danby
amounting to an hour’s viewing alto-
gether; and a short on Karel Appel
called Appel Salad which avoids all
didacticism, to the annoyance of those
anxious to be educated. Even at this
early stage in what, hopefully, will be a
long and fruitful career, he has good
control of actors, excellent editing judg-
ment and generally inconspicuous well-
considered use of technique.

But best of all he has subtlety. and in
subtlety lies the birth of humour, in my
opinion. For when an audience must
search a little for the gag, or patiently
let the ludicrous force of circumstances
shape the absurdity that becomes amus-
ing, then the audience itself is creating
the humour rather than accepting a
calculated, cued barrage such as TV
comics utilize. And when the audience
finds humour in a situation, they are
not just amused, they are happy.

—N.E.

78 Cinema Canada

Montreal Main

Frank Vitale’s remarkable first feature
film, Montreal Main, probes deeply into
the troubled and insecure inner core of
the people who will not conform to
society’s limiting black-or-white, male-
or-female classification. And in so doing
it suggests the diversity of sexuality, the
shades and shifts lying inherent and
unacknowledged in all people. Watch-
ing, you flash Lolita, Peter Lorre as
“M”, parental incest, and a flood of
forgotten allusions from history and lit-
erature about the secret mysterious
world of indeterminate sex and for-
bidden love.

Long after sexual diversity is ack-
nowledged and understood, Canadians
will be proud of this early work, this
original, brave, revealing and beautifully
constructed film.

It has the integrity of a diary, or a
confession. It is an inside study of hu-
mans hunting for those relationships
that define emotional life. In a world
where sexuality is no longer linked in-
evitably to parenthood, and people are
becoming disconnected digits in a com-
puterized society, desperate for indi-
vidual meaning, the relevance of the
need to love and be loved, and perhaps
the impossibility, have implications that
reverberate into the twenty-first
century.

With zero population, and the next
generation about to become the first
so-called “permanent society” the male
and female will obviously develop into
other beings than those their genders
define now as essential to the survival of
the species. Vitale’s film previews a
world where the only real need the
characters have for each other is the
need to be needed. During the course of
the film the consequences of that and
the resulting emptiness make us realize
that in losing adherence to animal func-
tions and their structures (hunting, bear-
ing, protecting, helping each other sur-
vive) we drift into a realm where indi-
vidual purpose is lost and emotional
survival endangered.

Thus a grimy group of Montreal
Main’s loft-dwellers, artists and gays,
and their incestuous infatuations, jeal-
ousies and experiments, offer not only a
widening experience for an audience,
but a portent of a future generation’s
problem in finding out how to be
needed as individuals, when no one is.

Credits for script and cast are the
same. Following studio, star and auteur
systems in filmmaking, group or co-
operative works are now developing a
new strength and popularity. Vitale’s
work is a forerunner here also. A kind
of Imaginary Documentary, he and his
friends have found a way to present
what amounts to a conjecture, or day-
dream, in the style of reality.

Charged with a raw realism created

by the semi-improvisational technique,
it hoodwinks the audience into for-
getting this is no Actuality Drama, d@ la
Allan King, but an exploration of possi-
bilities that, like daydreaming, permits
safe investigation without actual danger.
Perhaps it is Vitale’s way of clarifying
his thinking, looking for solutions, di-
verting his energies and avoiding mis-
takes; indeed, living a projection of his
life based on truth: an Imaginary or
Pretend Documentary.

At any rate, it works and works well.
Vitale is one hell of a filmmaker. His
background includes Country Music
Montreal 1971 a competent and original
study, shown on the CBC; being asso-
ciate-director and co-producer on some
four or five films during the time he
lived in New York; and experience as
unit director on Joe and as a cameraman
for Newsreel.

Vitale’s editing is often superb; intui-
tive and exciting. The style of the film
encompasses lyricism, impressionism,
routine shots and awkward, jumbled,
hand-held shooting, in a combination
that at first seems jarring until one
realizes that it simply mirrors the way
we see life: things are beautiful some-
times, ugly another. The technique,
style and theme blend inseparably and
Eric Block’s camerawork is totally uni-
fied with Vitale’s direction.

Unfortunately improvisational acting
techniques seem to have caused almost
impossible sound problems for Pedro
Novak, and many words, phrases and
comments are muddied, missed and lost.
This is too bad particularly because on a
first viewing you need all those words to
help keep everyone sorted out and the
plot figured, since the film doesn’t fol-
low precise chronological or linear
action.

The music is aptly composed by jazz
improvisational artist Beverly Glenn-
Copeland and is fittingly lyrical on the
surface, nervously pulsing underneath,
underlining and in harmony with the
film.

Finally, the story: The main plot
involves a bearded photographer named
Frank, played by Frank Vitale, and his
many-leveled and complicated infatua-
tion with a twelve-year-old boy named
Johnny. Whether motivated by beauty,
jealousy, longing for youth, innocence,
mystery or rebellious defiance of ethical
codes, the friendship between the two
includes attractions of parenthood,
brotherhood, sexual love, danger and
perversity. The theme is reversed and
carried into a sub-plot involving Frank’s
friend Bozo and his attempt at a love
affair with a charming, normal girl
named Jackie.

Both expose the ignorance of the
straight world about other emotional
worlds, the radiating consequences of
love and lovelessness, and the limita-
tions of a system that believes the myth

that gays are witty, supercilious fun-
people, sarcastic and superficial, and
that everyone else knows their own
sexual self.

This is a subtle, splendid film.

White Dawn

Shot in Canada’s Arctic region (Frobi-
sher Bay, Baffin Island) last summer,
the $2.6 million American production
of Canadian author James Houston’s
novel The White Dawn, opened in Can-
ada and the U.S. in July. A Paramount
Pictures release, produced by Martin
Ransohoff, The White Dawn’s associate
producer was author Houston who co-
wrote the screenplay with Thomas
Rickman. The film is an enthralling and
haunting experience. Unquestionably
the finest feature film evocation of Arc-
tic Eskimo life to date, it even surpasses
Flaherty’s silent classic, Nanook of the
North in style and insight. Neither a
melodrama, nor a documentary, nor a
simple-minded travelogue, The White
Dawn with its superlative cinematog-
raphy, editing and scoring, is a fine
example of modern technology exploit-
ed to its utmost capability in capturing
and evoking the tangibles and intang-
ibles of Arctic existence. A rather con-
ventional plot (three “civilized” men
inadvertently destroy the peaceful life

—FA

TER THAN-A SP
THE HIGH SPEED ARRI 16

CANADIAN
MOTIONPICTURE
EQUIPMENT

RENTALS LIMITED

33 GRANBY STREET, TORONTO, ONTARIO.

of an Inuit community in the late
1890’s) is an unfortunate handicap in an
essentially visual film; the script often
oversimplifies in words and dramatic
action, issues already expressed visually
in all their stark and glorious complex-
ity. But it’s the images, the sounds, the
sensations you recall and savour long
after the end of The White Dawn.
Ransohoff is to be commended for
having such faith in the basic material of
Houston’s novel that he has permitted
very few compromises due to commerci-
ality. Two of the film’s American
“stars” —Lou Gossett and Warren Oates
— never really manage to out-pace the
solid competition from the non-
professional all-Eskimo ‘“‘supporting”’
cast including Simonie Kopapik as Inuit-
leader Sarkak; Pilitak as one of Sarkak’s
wives; and the young man who played
Sarkak’s son. It’s their film and they

a in ee eT

simply shine! Only American actor
Timothy Bottoms’ thoughtful portrayal
of Daggett frequently manages to out-
shine both the Inuit performers and the
breathtaking landscape. Philip Kauf-
man’s direction is sensitive and un-
compromising; the cinematography,
under the direction of Michael Chap-
man, is stunning and measures up
beautifully to the grandeur of its
subject; and Henry Mancini’s score is a
masterful balance of primitive themes
and subdued modern interpretation —
it’s his finest work ever. Aside from the
NFB’s excellent films on the Netsilik
Eskimos, one wonders why the two
greatest feature-length films on the life
of the Canadian Eskimo (Nanook and
Dawn) have been undertaken by
American directors and producers.

—Laurinda Hartt

864-1113

EEDING BULLET

Cinema Canada 79

OPINION

Kirwan Cox

Sitting on the foggy edge
waiting for Godot

Sitting on the foggy edge of the Atlantic
a hundred miles closer to Ireland than
Toronto in a Newfoundland outport
makes it difficult to write for a film
magazine. The world doesn’t have the
Same perspective watching the horses
gazing freely or the icebergs sitting like
white mountains in the mist outside
Folly Point (which is above the town of
Port Kirwan or Admirals Cove —
depending on whether you read the No
Dumping signs or the tombstones).

Newfoundland has been attracting
many newcomers over the past few
years who obviously prefer the view
from Folly Point. Down the road is an
English literature teacher from Toronto.
The house I’m sitting in belongs to an
artist who was born in Timmins, Ont.
and some of the most outspoken
Newfies — like Michael Cook — are from
England. There is no patriot like a
transplanted patriot.

From this place the law of the sea
conference in Caracas seems infinitely
more important to the survival of
Canadian life than the Gaspé confer-
ence on the provinces and film. Of
course, both these things are part of the
same question — one from the economic
direction and the other from the
cultural and much to the chagrin of
companies like Paramount these things
constantly overlap.

One thing in common between
outport fishermen and urban film-
makers would seem to be a cynicism
about the decisions and the decision-
makers affecting their lives and liveli-
hood. Will Canadian leaders ever make
policies for the avowed benefit of the
locals over the others? Or will Canada
remain everyone else’s door rest for-
ever?

Sometimes policies — any policies —
seem hopeless unless administered by
the right people. Only men and women
can breathe life into an idea and the
best ideas often languish because the
dynamic leaders weren’t there. We need
only look at the result John Grierson
achieved at the National Film Board or
Pierre Juneau at the CRTC to see
inspired leadership.

Of course, these civil servants not
only exceeded their authority — they
created it. They seized a moment and

80 Cinema Canada

applied a vision they brought to their
job. Rare men and women are hard to
find — but too often a bureaucracy
throws up the mediocre and keeps the
able from positions of influence. Call it
the peter principle or maybe the
duchambon principle.

Gen. Duchambon was the French
commander of Fort Beauséjour on the
Chignecto Isthmus where Nova Scotia
and Acadia once met. The fort fell to
the British in 1755 and Duchambon’s
conduct was so questionable that he was
almost court martialled.

History next finds him in charge of
the defences of the Plains of Abraham
when Wolfe decided to walk up them in
1759. There is no telling where Duch-
ambon was sent next, but the French
Empire lost India about this time and I
have no doubt Duchambon was there.

Duchambon must have been polite
and gracious. The perfect gentleman
who mixed well in the salon and the
mess. He was always the right man for
the job.

As the last election campaign proved,
leadership is the issue in a world full of
Duchambons. The various cultural poli-
cies (existent and non-existent) in
Canada have suffered disastrously these
last two years because of a greater-than-
usual absence of leadership.

For example, the Secretary of State’s
film officer, Robert Desjardins, spent
nearly two years trying to devise a film
policy with the help of a high powered
advisory committee. Incredibly, he
didn’t do it. Two years of equivocation
and smiles and failure. Some pious odds
and ends (including a needed increase in
the capital cost allowance) were an-
nounced by the Secretary of State four
days before the election. This stop gap
film policy was written by a Liberal
party worker at the eleventh hour
without any background except the files
left behind by the film officer.

There has been a crisis of leadership
in the cultural field by the present
government in Ottawa which now has a
majority. This government must admit
(to itself if no one else) that the
Duchambons have failed it and replace
them with the adrenalin visionaries.
Imagine a Harry Boyle running the CBC,
or a Patrick Watson the NFB, or a Peter
Pearson the CFDC. Of course quite
impossible for many reasons, but just
imagine. --@

cinema
Canada

ADVERTISERS’ INDEX No. 15

All Canadian Answering Service . . . 47
Alpiva Cine Service = . 27S S- 2as 19
Angenieux Service Corporation ... 80
Art Magazine 9 aS es 47
Bratin: Plectac .eawaces ~ aheiven 49
a GUC i eee a ae eh
Canadian Motion Picture

Eapipment Mental oo cog as ue Lo
W. Carsen-Co; (huinigy 2 SS 71
Cine: Books:sic0s: da Gaeten teeta aay
CineGrafic Publications ....... 47
Cinequip (O’Connor) .........41
GIREVIRIONG ios gt So + aloha ns 4
Crystal Film Productions....... 47
Dictaphone Telephone Answering . 47
Pilla rouse ee 25,84
Film Opticals/MS Art Services . . . . 35
Gstatian. FTOGUCTIONS v2 eK 5. wees 3 47
Kingsway Film Equipment ....... 9
Kodak Canada-Lid *.. comcews ba 25 2
Mackenzie Equipment (Amega) .. . 81
Mirrophonics Sound Studio ..... 83
P.S; Production Services .... 2... 1g
Quepec Finriiaps . eS 41
Outi: bess ek See oe, 56
ROGEl ROUVEION os veka ees 81
SOOO ING SS) ase Sas ey 2a
Videoart Productions =...¢ 00 22.3 16
PUPP ie OT can ee 41

angenieux service corporation of california
13381 BEACH AVE., VENICE, CALIF. 90291 © 213-821-5080

FACTORY SERVICE
CENTERS

REPAIRS ¢ PARTS:
ACCESSORIES

angenieux corporation of america
440 MERRICK RD., OCEANSIDE, N.Y. 11572 © 516-678-3520

AMEGA’S Series 511 PIC-AMP
does what it says:

@it allows the recording engi-
neer to “pick and choose”.

@it deletes errors on sound
tracks.

@lit erases unwanted recorded
information replacing it with
selected new material.

@lt accomplishes corrections
without adding ‘‘clicks’’ or
“pops”.

@ It makes desired changes with-
out inserting “dead spots”.

@it can handle up to sixteen
tracks in a multi-track “mix”.

@it can be operated from any
remote location.

@it is compatable with an
system you have. :

AMEGA’s SERIES 511 has no match in performance,
quality and price.

Send for complete catalog of recorders, reproducers,
consoles and studio accessories.

1195 Richards Street
cine service Itd. Vancouver V6B 3G1, B.C.
Tel. (604) 688-7757

Telex 04 50-7757

Available in Canada from:
MACKENZIE EQUIPMENT COMPANY

and
26 Duncan Street
916 Davie Street

Toronto, Ontario (416) 364-2266. Risoraweer Spbno res tre. Vancouver. BC Vez 168
Tel. (604) 682-4646

knilroyaldutcharmyfilmtrainingcombatphotographerpfnindonesianfilmboarddocumen
tariespolygoonhaarlemnether1andsnews itemss ingaporehongkongmanilafareastsphere
chinanews formosafoxmovietonenewsbandungconferencel i femagazinenewguineacargocu
ltpathenewsfrenchindochinadienbienphuhanoimultifilmfeaturesprofiltineurenberg
trialsjapanrecoverykoreapyangyonpeacetalksdeutscheklangfilmegyptsuezwaritalyi
ndustrialrevolutionamericanforcesfilmunitgermanytrainingfilmspersariindonesia
nfilmfeaturesfriedapraguefilmfestivalpeacepricepakindonesiafilmssukarnobiogra
phyberkeleyuniversitystudieswithmargaretmeadindiapakistanrepatriationtehranpr
oblemsabsaustraliadeepoutbackcrocodilehuntinggreatbarrierreefshelloilfivedocu
mentariesonoilexplorationfareastearlynews features forcbsvisnewspatrick]umumbai
ncongouprisingdeutscheklangfilmchinapekingszechuanmaoreturnstelevisioneitalia
libyaisraelfirstwargaumontkaleebritainirishproblemshungarianrevoltpolygoonvid
eonewscanadastaffcameramanchanvancouvercbccbltfeedalaskaneartquakecbcedmonton
staf fcameramansevenyearshayriverfloodsiniterantsohiostateawardtorontofreelanc
ecbcthishourhassevendayssunday thewayitisdocumentbloomfieldcarpenterbytradeone
hundredandtwenty fouritemspubliceyemanalivesportsfestivalgeneralprogrammingabc
wideworldofsportssherbrookechampionshipsctvperrysprobeyoungandrubicamcommerci
alsnescafedovesoapshel loi lothersndpdouglasspecialetccicaarmisticemodernartcty
ourworldnewsspecialsindiabangladeshtheseedsofwarvietnamspecialcbcbiafratuesda
ynightctvlondonlifehumanjourneyseriesfivegoldmedalsatlantafilmfestivalearlyye
arsmarriagelifestylehousingcanadianfilmawardsetrogctvcanadafiveportraitsthepr
airiesgoldmedalatlantagoldenhugochicagogoldmedalnewyorkfilmfestivalpbspublict
levisionbostonohiostateawardscbsnewyorksixtyminutesemmyforhuttonrichestmannbc
reportsyouthproblemsdraftdodgers incanadaabcwideworldofsportsassignmentsctvwfi
veabouttwohundreditemsprogressiveconservativeconventionliberalconventionunite
dstateselectionsgeorgewallacetourctvinquiryinoverthecounterdrugsfishylegrosch
ristmasspecialcommercialspromosforctvanimatedstationbreaksfilminsertsforctvca
nadafiveportraitstheshieldgoldmedalatlantafilmfestivalcbcmanyfeaturettessunda
yweaponsforirelandontarioelectionspecialairpolutionindependentcinimageproduct
jonsltdtrinidadblacksteelrunneruoetrogcanadianfilmawardskashmirkarateindustri
aldocumentariesbackgroundprojectionsguestlectureronfilmsatnycolumbiauniversit
ytorontouniversitycanadiansocietyofcinematographersiatselocal644nycommercialp
hotographertwentysevenyearsexperienceallgearsixteenandthirtyfivemillimetersex
perienceanywhereintheworldfeaturesdramadocumentariescommercialsindustrial film

robert rouveroy ¢.s.c.
(416) 429-1219
9102-5 dufresne court, don mills, ontario,canada, m3c 1b8.

Cinema Canada 81

REVERB

Cinema Canada
6 Washington Avenue, No.3
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1L2

Dear Fellows of Cinema Canada,

Life is getting so expensive in Japan (that’s
why we use cheap letter paper) that we
almost panicked. Yeah. We thought we
couldn’t subscribe again for this year. But
hell, how can we live without you? So, we
decided not to eat for the next few weeks
instead. So, late as usual, here we are with our
cheque for the subscription: only one year for
now, sorry.

Yeah. You have been sending us the
precious magazine under the name of Yuri
Yoshimura or Claude Gagnon or Cyclops Pro-
ductions: I can’t recall exactly but from now
on please send to Cine Qua Non. The address
is still the same though.

Lots of thanks, keep going, you’re doing
great work.

André Pelletier
Cine Qua Non
Kyoto, Japan

Dear Cinema Canada,
Cinema Canada interviews are better than
Andy Warhol interviews.

David Anderson,
Toronto, Ontario

Laurinda Hartt
Cinema Canada

Dear Ms. Hartt:

I most certainly appreciate your enlightening
and exciting article on Richard Dreyfuss in
“Cinema Canada”.

I would appreciate your efforts in obtain-
ing 6 copies of “‘Cinema Canada” for my own
use.

Naturally, please bill me for all charges
which you incur.

Many thanks!

Sincerely,

Meyer Mishkin

(Note: Mr. Mishkin is Richard Dreyfuss’
agent.)

82 Cinema Canada

Dear George,

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you
know how pleased I was with the article in
the last issue and tell you about the response I
have been getting to it. I have had a surpri-
singly large number of people comment on it,
and without exception they have been ex-
tremely complimentary. I guess I must have
been underestimating the size of your reader-
ship!

The response has been so encouraging that
I am tempted to undertake other articles.
There are all sorts of things going on in
Canadian film and film in general, which
would make interesting articles and which I
happen to know something about from exper-
ience (bitter and otherwise). If you are inter-
ested, please let me know.

Keep up the struggle.

Sincerely,
Doug Bowie
Montreal, Quebec

Dear Sirs,

Enclosed is my cheque to extend my sub-
scription for a further two year period. I
would like to take this opportunity to comp-
lement you on your fine publication, its
professionalism and content.

I hope that one of these days we shall find
the time to drop you a note regarding our
own film unit here at the University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatoon and share some of
our experiences with your readers.

Yours sincerely,

G.A.A. Farkas

Acting Director

Audio Visual Centre
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

The fourth of July 198th American Year
Salut les anglais,
Today’s the big day. If you want to overturn
the Canadian Film System, July the 4th is the
day. You see, this is one of the few days in
the year when our distribution Geniuses are
without supervision from head office.

Vivre le quatre juillet!
Jean- Yves Durocher,
Rawdon, Québec

(Sent on recycled computer print outs)

Dear Cinema Canada,

Enclosed please find a cheque for 4 dollars for
one student subscription.

Although I’m not a Canadian, I sometimes
wish I was, and I think your magazine is
excellent. I especially like the film reviews by
Natalie Edwards. She really knows how to
express her feelings on paper, better than
anyone I’ve seen except, perhaps, Pauline
Kael. It’s not much to bestow you with
compliments, but I really feel that Cinema
Canada has great talent and promise. Good
luck!

Adam Anthony Steg,
Syracuse, New York

Just scanned your latest issue — jam packed
and great!

Best wishes,
Kenneth Post,
Mississauga, Ontario

Dear Readers |

Just a UN love-Reter from
US to OR:

Thowg it we shovld fr you
know That we ore sour oudiled
Gad | OVOHA UW ‘
“On: prob charter

Aud we have am ano
monk to wake:
iy o& Tuly S519 your favorite
filma magacane has bean Out
of Debt! We're hoping te keep
ih (lo wre...

1821-698 ‘IS9M 199-0 BUT 60P

PoyIWI] SOITAIOS punos dTUOYydOLITT

‘JJOS.INOA “YIOQ JO JWOS dYVUI PUY
“OSIOU JBIIS DY} jNOGe

SMOIU POOS 9Y} O} Ud}SI] PUB JUOD AO ‘SN [[Bd OS
‘SWa}SAS puNOS SIUOYdOLIAY 9Y}
uns OYM a[doad dy} 0} (WY) DxYVW 9M *WdY) IALY
}.UOp aM Jl) BpeuRD UI AleIQI s}aJJo puNos }sassd1q
94) ysnoiy}) ‘poods suAS sow] g ye [[O1 pue YDSO

-Jjasanod nq swe]q 0) Apoqgou aaey NO< ‘feuOEsuUaS } USI
XIW 10 SuIqqnp }xoU ANOA J] :SMaU Peq IY} JX9N

ey) ? Yj,

NX

SS
SSPE

"a
yLAAY

— SSS
>
oss

zt ge

ued Jey) JUSWIdINbS WO “SMOU 9} JO [[e NOA {9} 0}
Addey 2q |],9H “Uoneisdo ay) speay [[I9N.O II!
‘9UOU 0} PUODIS
S.Jey] Way) ayesodo 0} Jyels B@ dARY 9M SJ1O0}DafO01d
pue Siaqqnp ‘S1ap1O591 JO W9}SAS DATJVAOUU! INO YIM
Suoje 03 O|, ‘uaddey 0} Sulosd si peq SuIyJOU asnedaq
‘yJasinoA oue[q 0} sARY },UOM NOA ‘asinod JO

6

*BILIOULY YION
ul azayMAue suIa}SAS PUNOS pdZItayndUIOD psUBApe
JSOUI 94} SEY MOU OJUOAOT, :SMIU POOS IY} 4SAL]

Wy fj
Wy

%
yy,

es CATe

SSMOU Pq SUIOS PUB SMO POOS UIOS
SOOUNOUUL STUOYGOLITTA]

Shooting a sky diver falling at 120 mph,
you’ve got enough on your mind.

So you choose Kodak film.

You step out of the plane. at-7,000 feet and falling fast Help. If you run into a
The sky diver follows. You or in the controlled environ- —_ really tough problem,
glide into position and the ment of the studio. You call a Kodak Technical

action starts. You’ve only
got about 45 seconds and
you’re depending on
a lot of things for
success. Your skill.
Your chute.
And your film.
Kodak quality
means consist- ¥
ently uniform film
properties. So you
know you can depend
on Kodak to give you the
results you want now, and in
the future, whether you’re

can depend on Representative. He’s had a
something else _lot of experience in solving
from Kodak, too. __ technical problems. And
he’s got the backing of
some very talented people
at Kodak.
Part cameraman, part
sky diver. Up there,
you’ve got enough
on your mind.

Motion Picture and Education Markets
Kodak Canada Ltd.

3500 Eglinton Ave. W.,

Toronto, Ontario M6M1V3

Think of her as

She can get you a
quick sound-transfer. Or
a good mixer. Or a 51-
track theatre. Or just a
sound booth.

Dorothy Emes is the
booking lady here at Film
House. And anything
that has to do with film making, she can fix
it for you.

Because, as you may have heard, Film
House has been re-built from the ground
up. With the handiest facilities in North
America. (One small example: after you see
your inter-lock, we now can transfer it right
to Sony cassette. So you can take it away
with you.) |

And helping Dorothy today are some of
the best people in film. People like Clarke

Some of her helpers:
Len Baker, Night Supervisor * Paul Coombe, Mixer ¢ Clarke
DaPrato, Mixer « Colin Davis, Technical Director * Stan Ford,
Rentals Manager « Bill Hambley, Laboratory Manager * David
Herrington, Chief Timer ¢ Ian Jacobson, Mixer * Wilson Markle,
Sales ¢ Ron Morby, Production Supervisor * Paul Norris, Order
Desk * Leo O’Donnell, Technical Director *« Michael Ryan, Post
Production Co-ordinator « Andy Shepherd, Timer ¢ Cyril Steck-
ham, Machine and Transfer * Ken Unwin, Engineering * Tony
Van Den Akker, Mixer. (And Al Streeter is on hand with a com-
prehensive library of over 10,000 sound effects.)

your Mom.

| DaPrato, Paul Coombe,
> Bill Hambley, and Colin
Davis. People you can
count on every time out.

In the Lab, Paul
Norris is on the order
desk. And Bill Hambley
is managing the newest,
most dependable hardware in the country.
Like the new Kodak ECN II that develops
the new finer-grain Kodak 5247/7247. (With
people like Chief Timer, David Herrington,
to make sure every foot of your film is right.)

And there’s lots more. Because we’re
working to make the new Film House the
finest one-stop Film-making facility in North
America. And we're here to stay.

Come and see us soon. Or call Dorothy
Emes at 363-4321. Just ask for Mom.

And what they can do for you:

Eastman Colour Negative II and Print * Colour Reversal Inter-
mediates (CRI) * Low Contrast Interpositive and Intermediate
Negatives * Ektachrome and Gevachrome with Sound « Answer
and Release Printing * Personalized Service * Three Mixing
Theatres, including Voice Recording, Effects Recording, Colour
Telecine and Transfer to Sony %4” Cassette, Continuous Double
System Screenings * Magnetic and Optical Transfers « Sound
Effects Cartridges * Separate Rushes Transfer Room « 8-Track
Music Mixdown.

Our house is your house.